Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, PUNE
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI
आदेश / ORDER
PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM :
This appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 13.04.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad [‘CIT’] for assessment year 2003-04.
2. We note that this appeal was filed with a delay of 3317 days. Ld. AR, Shri Sudhir Taori referred to the affidavit and we find the notarized affidavit dated 02.03.2022 filed by the Secretary representing the assessee which is reproduced for ready reference: “Affidavit Dated 02-03-2022 Affidavit of The Agricultural Produce Market Committee Sillod Tq. Sillod Dist Aurangabad through secretary Mr. Patil Vishwasrao Ananda age-47 years, that I the Above named deponent, am well conversant with the facts deposed below. 1. That the order was passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax Aurangabad received on 18/07/2006 granting 12A(a) registration certificate with the wrong date of registration date, i.e. 10/10/2002 which has not relevant with our date of registration date, which was clearly mentioned as 08/08/1968 and requested delay was not condoned. All though valid reasons were filed along with application. The said order was passed without giving any personal hearing before rejecting our application. 2. That the time for filing of the appeal before the Tribunal was to expire on 17/07/2007, we filed appeal on 16/10/2015 with delay condonation request for reasons explained below.
3. That the matter was clear case of wrong facts recorded on the order and was referred for rectification under section 154 of Income Tax Act with Hon. CIT on 25/02/2007 well before the date due for filing the appeal. 4. That the applicant despite being a Semi Government Organization has paid it’s all tax liability in time and it was one of the few highest tax payers in the region. The matter was involving huge refund and it was better to get the order rectified from the Income Tax office in view of various clear judgments of High Courts and also the Supreme Court and there was no question of Law to avoid further appeals from IT department and unnecessary legal burden to the judiciary as per consultants advice. 5. When section 154 application was not disposed of in time application has also filed a grievance petition with Chief Commissioner of Income Tax on 19/12/2013 and the matter was still not disposed off through the clear speaking order. The final hearing of same was taken by CIT ‘Aurangabad’ on 07/08/2014 as against Chief CIT to whom application was addressed as per the grievance redressal mechanism and final order is not received to lodge the appeal as on date of filing the appeal. We have decided to file the appeal with Hon. ITAT Pune on the basic order dated 13/04/2006 received on 18/07/2006.
Signed at Sillod 02/03/2022.”
3. On perusal of the same and upon hearing, we note that, it was contended that the CIT granted registration with wrong date of registration as 10.10.2002 instead of 08.08.1968. The application filed by the assessee before the CIT is at page No.1, on perusal of the same, we note that it was undated, date of creation of the trust or establishment was mentioned as 08.08.1968. Admittedly, the assessee stated to have filed the said application on 09.12.2003 which is date of receipt of application in the CIT’s office which is evident from CIT’s order dated 13.04.2006, at page No.12, but the CIT granted registration w.e.f. 01.04.2003 for not explaining the delay from 1968 to 2003, there was no evidence before us to show that reasonable explanation offered before the CIT. The only contention made by the ld. AR that the valid reasons were explained before the CIT and was not considered properly.
Ld. AR contended that the assessee is a semi-government organization and it is the highest taxpayer in the Region, because of non- granting of registration u/s 12A of the Act, a huge refund is pending before the IT Department and it is unnecessary legal burden on the assessee. We note that the payment of taxes and pending refund from the Income Tax Department is not a reasonable cause for filing the appeal with abnormal delay of 3317 days.
We note that the assessee came into existence w.e.f. 08.08.1968 as local authority under the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing Regulation Act, 1963 vide Notification issued by the Government of Maharashtra, since then the assessee was exempted for income tax u/s 10(20) of the Act. Thereafter, a change is effected in the provisions of section 10(20) vide Finance Act, 2002. An Explanation to section 10(20) was inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2003, according to which the definition of ‘local authority’ was amended and the assessee was not covered in the said definition and its income become liable for income tax w.e.f. 01.04.2003. Having not exempted due to the change of law, the assessee filed undated Form No.10A before the CIT, Aurangabad for seeking registration u/s 12A of the Act. The said application was received by the CIT, Aurangabad on 09.12.2003. It was contended through letter dated 08.01.2004 that the assessee want exemption with retrospective effect as delay in application was mainly due to the interpretation of law, which led us to think that unless trust is registered, the exemption shall not be available but with the help of our Chartered Accountants and Maharashtra State Agricultural Marketing Board we could know the way that we can get exemption from income tax. The CIT in 12A proceedings having not satisfied with the reasons as offered by the assessee in filing the application under Form 10A, rejected the grant of registration u/s 12A of the Act with retrospective effect i.e. from 08.08.1968, but however granted from first day of financial year in which the application is made. It is also pertinent to observe that the explanation as contained vide letter dated 08.01.2004 regarding the delay, the CIT rejected the same having not satisfied with the said reasons which really prevented the assessee from making application before the expiry of period vide clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 12A of the Act.
Further, we note that the detailed reasons for delay as explained by the assessee vide letter dated 25-02-2007 is at page no.13 of the paper books filed by the Revenue.:
“1. Till 31.3.2002 we were recognized as local authority eligible for exemption under section 10(20).
We are situated in rural area and we depend highly on our head and brain institution i.e. Maharashtra State Agricultural Marketing Board (MSAMB) to which we are paying 5% of our gross income as contribution for the said work. It never insisted on us to make application under the said section. In fact they promoted us to pay the tax. The letter from them to that effect is enclosed herewipth. They latter asked us to apply under th said section the application was there after made by taking experts opinion in the matter. Copies of other letter is also enclosed herewith.
We have misinterpreted the law initially which we feel any other organization should have as the interpretation requires skills, which are not available with us. We also request you to note the corrected date of our formation as 8/8/68 instead of 10/10/2002 which is taken on the registration certificate.”
On perusal of the above, we note that in order to condone the delay, the assessee has to offer sufficient reasons which caused or prevented the assessee to file appeal in time, but we find the explanation offered in Sl.No.1 to 3, no sufficient reasons as required under law as explained by the assessee, therefore, in our opinion, the ld.CIT(A) rightly rejected the registration from 08.08.1968 and granted registration from 1st day of Financial Year in which the application was filed i.e. 01.04.2003.
Therefore, we find reasons as canvassed mainly, such as, due to change in law, non-insistence of Maharashtra State Agricultural Marketing Board (MSAMB) and no skills to interpret law does not constitute sufficient cause which really prevented the assessee in filing the appeal in time before us. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions of ld. AR and ld. DR, delay of 3317 days is not condoned. In view of dismissal of delay, grounds raised by the assessee becomes academic and are dismissed.
In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 26th May, 2022.