Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Awadh Public School Academy, appealed against an order from the Commissioner of Income-tax-II dismissing its application for registration under Section 12AA. However, the appeal was filed with an inordinate delay of 3299 days.
Held
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and rejected the application for condonation of delay, concluding that the assessee failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the extensive delay. The Tribunal found the assessee negligent and the cited case laws distinguishable.
Key Issues
Whether there was sufficient cause for condoning an inordinate delay of 3299 days in filing the appeal against the dismissal of a Section 12AA registration application.
Sections Cited
12AA
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA
PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.:
This appeal, by the assessee is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Lucknow dated 26.06.2003, pertaining to the assessment year 2002-03. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -
1. The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Lucknow is not justified in dismissing the application for registration of school under section 12AA of the Income-Tax Act, 1961.
2. Any other ground which the appellant may take during the course of hearing with the kind permission of the Hon'ble Tribunal.”
2. It is reported by the Registry that the appeal is barred by limitation for 3299 days. The appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal exparte vide order dated 13.06.2014. Thereafter, the Tribunal was pleased to recall its order in Miscellaneous Application No.157/LKW/2015 dated 08.06.2016. In this background, the present appeal is before us.
Page 2 of 4 3. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there was reasonable cause for not filing the appeal in time. He submitted that the previous counsel namely Shri Piyush Mishra, FCA and other counsel Shri K. K. Dubey, Adv, were engaged to file the appeal before this Tribunal but the appeal could not be filed and same was not informed to the assessee. He further contended that the assessee has not taken any advantage for delay. Ld. Counsel placed reliance on various case laws to buttress the contention that if no prejudice is caused to Revenue the delay whatsoever be should be condoned. In this regard, the Ld. Counsel placed reliance on the following case laws: -
S. Particulars No. 1 Improvement Trust, Ludhiana vs Ujagar Singh & Others- Civil Appeal Nos 2395 of 2008- Supreme Court of India, New Delhi 2 Remex Construction/Remex Electricals vs First Income Tax Officer & Others – W.P. No.1351 of 1982, Order dated 09.03.1986 High Court of Bombay 3 Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd Vs. Add. CIT – Order dated 20.12.2005 ITAT Mumbai. Equivalent citation (2006) 102 TTJ 53, Mum 4 All India Primary Teachers vs Director of Income Tax Order dt. 04.06.2004, 2005 ITAt Delhi. Equivalent citations: (2005) 93 TTJ 155. 5 Arun Ganguli vs Amaresh Ganguli, R.S.A. No.222/2015, Order Dt 15.10.2015 Delhi High Court 6 The Rohtak Coop Milk Producer vs Assessee ITA No.1181(Del.)/2010 A.Y. 2004-05 Order dated 13.03.2012 ITAT Delhi. 7 Shri Lad Shakhiya Wani Samaj Kalyan & Shikshan Prasarak Mandal vs CIT(E)-ITA. No.572/PUN/2020 order dated 05.01.2021 8 Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) vs ACIT – Civil Appeal Nos 6677-6690 of 2010, order dated 07.11.2019 (Supreme Court)
On the other hand, the Ld. CIT-DR opposed the submissions. She submitted that this is a classical case of negligence where after a huge inordinate delay, the assessee is seeking condonation of delay or unsubstantiated grounds. She contended that the assessee is required to explain delay of each day.
We have heard the rival contention and perused the materials available on record. In this case, there is inordinate delay of 3299 days in preferring the present appeal. It is well Page 3 of 4 settled that the assessee is required to explain and demonstrate that there was sufficient cause for the delay in preferring the appeal. In the instant case, we find that case laws relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is distinguishable on facts. The assessee has not brought any material suggesting that the assessee had taken steps regarding filing of the appeal. The assessee has not brought to our notice any communication by the assessee to its previous counsels who failed to file the appeal despite insistence by the assessee. The assessee is a society running a school and cannot be oblivious of the law of limitation. In these compelling circumstances, we are unable to conclude that there was reasonable cause for the delay. Looking to the totality of facts as placed before us, it is not the case genuine lapse propelled by some uncontrolled circumstances. In the absence of such facts, no liberal view can be taken as the assessee has been thoroughly negligent in pursuing its case. Therefore, the present appeal in our considered view suffers from inordinate delay and latches without any plausible explanation, we hold accordingly. The appeal of the assessee is dismissed on the ground of limitation. The aforesaid application for seeking condonation of delay is hereby rejected. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee is also dismissed being barred by limitation.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as being barred by limitation.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 07/02/2025.