Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed a belated return of income claiming benefits under sections 11 & 12 of the Income Tax Act. The CPC processing the return did not allow these benefits as Form-10 was not furnished. The CIT(A) upheld this decision, citing a Supreme Court judgment that requires Form-10 to be filed before the due date for exemption under Section 11(2).
Held
The Tribunal noted a significant delay in filing the appeal and observed that the reasons provided by the assessee, related to obtaining approval from higher authorities and routine procedural delays, did not constitute sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Relying on Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal held that negligence and lack of due diligence by government officials are not grounds for condoning delay.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee can be condoned despite the lack of sufficient cause and evidence of negligence and lack of due diligence by government officials.
Sections Cited
11, 12, 11(2), 13(9), 250, 154
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU & SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV
PER PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Present appeal of the assessee is arising from the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 28.8.2023 and relates to assessment year 2019-20 having DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1055526353(1) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”).
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee in this case has filed return of income on 30.7.2020 for the impugned assessment year claiming the benefits of section 11 & 12 of the Act in respect of the income earned by the assessee. The return of income field by the assessee was processed by CPC vide order dated 30.10.2020. It is relevant to mention here that in this case, the due date of the filing of return was 31.10.2019. However, the assessee has filed the return Shimoga Urban Development Authority, Shivamogga Page 2 of 6 of income on 30.7.2020, which means the return was a belated return. Be that as it may, the CPC while processing the return could not allow the benefits of section 11 of the Act on the ground that the assessee has failed to furnish FORM-10 and hence, the claim of the assessee is not tenable.
Aggrieved with the order of the CPC, assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and contended that CPC has erred in not allowing the benefits of section 11(2) vis-à-vis accumulated amounts amounting to Rs.8,42,29,341/-. However, the ld. CIT(A) could not find any force in the arguments of the assessee and relying upon the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority in Civil Appeal No.21762 of 2017 dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing that as per the provisions of section 13(9) of the Act, exemption u/s 11(2) of the Act is allowed only if the return as well as Form 10 are filed before the due date.
Aggrieved with the order of CPC, assessee has come up in appeal before us.
At the outset, we observe that there is a delay of 74 days in the present appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, explaining the cause of delay has contended that the main reason for delay was due to the fact that the assessee could not be able to obtain approval from the Chairman in time. The affidavit filed by the assessee for contending the contention of delay prayer is reproduced hereunder for the sake of convenience.
The ld. D.R. opposing the prayer of the assessee pointed out that the reason given by the assessee that approval was not received from the higher authorities vis-à-vis filing of the appeal is not a valid reason for condoning the delay.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. In these days, the Hon’ble Supreme Court is coming very heavily on the limitation issue for both the parties i.e. for private as well as for government. Here, we would like to make a reference to the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Office of the Chief Post Master General Vs. Living Media Ltd. reported in (2012) 20 taxmann.com 347 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 13 has observed as under:
7.1 Ld Counsel for the assessee has tried to distinguish the above judgment on the ground that there was inordinate delay in that case and hence the ratio of that case is not applicable to the present case. However, we are of the view that the argument of the Ld is counsel is of no use as evident from the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court, reproduced herein above.
7.2 We would further like to make reference to the recent judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by LRs & Ors. Vs. The Special Deputy Collector (LA) reported in (2024) 4 SCR 241. In this case, the Hon’ble Apex Court after discussing the entire case laws on the issue of delay and considering the judgement in the case of Collector of land acquisition Vs. Katiji and Ors. (1987) 2 SCR 387 has observed as under:
7.2 In paraV of the recent judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pathapati Subba Reddy (supra), it is clearly mentioned that the courts must exercise the power of discretion in a strict manner even if there is sufficient cause. Hon’ble Apex Court has held that in three situations a) where there is inordinate delay b) where there is negligence c) where there is want of due diligence, the courts ordinarily should not condone the delay. The affidavit filed by the present assessee would prove beyond doubt that there was negligence as well as lack of due diligence by the government officials and hence, we are of the firm view that delay in this matter cannot
In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 31st Jan, 2025