The Commissioner of Income Tax - II, vs Sri Shikari Vishwanatam

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 5th DAY OF JANUARY 2015

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA

I.T.A. NO.539/2013

BETWEEN :

The Commissioner of Income-tax, Park View Building, No.284/1, 4th Main, P.J. Extension, Davangere – 577 002.

The Commissioner of Income-tax, Park View Building, No.284/1, 4th Main, P.J. Extension, Davangere – 577 002. ...APPELLANTS

(By Sri.K.V.Aravind, Adv.)

AND :

M/s. Chitradurga Urban Development Authority, Kelagote, Chitradurga. …RESPONDENT

(By Sriyuths.A.Shankar & M.Lava, Advs.) . . . .

- 2 -

This I.T.A. is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, arising out of order dated 14.08.2008 passed in ITA No.1207/Bang/2007 praying to : (i) formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein,

(ii) Allow the appeal and set-aside the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in I.T.A. No.1207/Bang/2007 dated 14.08.2008 and confirm the order passed by the Appellate Commissioner confirming the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Davangere.

This I.T.A. coming on for orders, this day, N.Kumar J., delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by the Revenue challenging the order passed by the Tribunal dated 14th August, 2008 directing the Commissioner of Income-Tax to grant registration under Section 12AA of the Income- Tax Act to the assessee, from the assessment year 2003-2004 onwards.

There is a delay of 1807 days in preferring this appeal. Hence, an application is filed to condone the

- 3 -

delay. The affidavit filed in support of the application discloses that the order passed by the Tribunal on 14.08.2008 was accepted by the Commissioner of Income-tax, but he recommended for preferring an appeal in respect of that portion of the order granting registration retrospectively from the year 2003-2004. However, the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax did not accept the said recommendation and accepted the order of the Tribunal in its entirety. Thus, the said order attained finality. It is only in the year 2012, in number of cases, when the Tribunal held that the Urban Development Authorities are not entitled to registration under Section 12AA of the Act, in order to maintain consistency and equal treatment, the present appeal is filed.

If the order of the Tribunal was in accordance with law and accepted by the Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax, merely because in the subsequent years in

- 4 -

some of the cases, the Tribunal took a different view, cannot be a ground for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal. If such a contention is accepted, the provision regarding limitation would loose its efficacy and there would not be any finality to these orders. As in the normal course, we find the higher authorities do lay down law reversing the earlier judgments. That cannot be a ground for condoning the delay. Therefore, we do not find any merit in this application.

Hence, the application filed for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, appeal is also dismissed.

Sd/- JUDGE

SPS

The Commissioner of Income Tax - II, vs. Sri Shikari Vishwanatam