SHREE UMIYAJI CHARITABKE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DIT (E), MUMBAI

The present appeal filed by the assessee against the order of DIT(E), Mumbai dated 15.04.2010. The present appeal is filed against the refusal to grant registration to the assessee u/s. 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”). Along with the appeal the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. We have noticed that in para 9 of the “Form 36” the assessee mentioned that that the impugned order was received to the assessee on 20.04.2010. And the perusal of record shows that this appeal was filed on 29.03.2011 which is beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The appeal is accompanied with an affidavit.

The affidavit filed on record is filed in a casual manner. In fact the affidavit placed on record is no affidavit in the eyes of law. We are afraid as to how, such affidavit was attested by a Notary Public, though it is fit case for initiating the enquiry against the person who attested the said affidavit, affidavit can only be sworn by a living person and not by an Institution (Trust). The para containing the name and particulars of the person who is swearing the affidavit are reproduced below; “We, M/s Shree Umiyaji Charitable Trust , Having ,Registered Office situated at Vishweshwar Nagar Road, Aarey Colony, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400063 do hereby state on solemn affirm as under:-”

The affidavit is filed in a casual manner. The affidavit filed on record has no value as affidavit can only be sworn by a living person. Even the contents of its do not disclose any reason to condone the delay in filing the appeal. We expressed our anguish for taking the proceeding before this Tribunal in such a casual approach.

Further on record ,we find written submission filed on behalf of assessee, on record in support of the contention for condonation of delay, wherein, the assessee tried to explain the delay with the following reasons: 5. The delayed occurred due to reasons that, as aforesaid, appellant is a charitable trust, a non-profit organization, wherein trustees are not acquainted with income tax and other legal proceedings and being charitable and non-commercial organization, it is but natural that sufficient attention has not been given to compliance, as compared to private commercial/business organization. 6) Also, the person, who was looking after said matter has left the work of the said appellant without informing trustees of the said appellant trust and therefore trustee was unable to keep track of the matter. 7) Hence, the appellant made an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal before this Hon'ble Court and also filed affidavit in support of said application, along with appeal memo. 8) In view of the aforesaid factual position, it is kindly requested to your honour that delaying in filing of said appeal be condoned and appeal be decide on merit in the interest of justice and equity, as the balance of convenience lies in favour of the said appellant. (B) Regarding Order of Learned Director of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai, in refusing to grant registration to Appellant u/s 12AA(1)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act):- 9) The said appellant had filed an application for Registration u/s 12A of Act on 15-10-2009. Thereafter a notice, dated 28-01-2010 has been issued, asking the appellant to file certain details. However, appellant failed to appear and also failed to file required details before Learned Director of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai. Hence, the said Director of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai, passed an exparte order u/s 12AA(1)(b)(ii) r.w.s. 12A of Act, dated 15-04-2010, refusing to grant registration to appellant. 10) The said non-compliance occurred due to the facts that, as aforesaid, appellant is a charitable trust, a non-profit organization, wherein trustees

The assessee has, apart from making general pleas, again failed to advance any valid reason for condoning the delay per its written submissions. The compliance of law is generally made only through professionals, so that it is incomprehensible that while assessee is in the know of the provision for registration under the Act, it is not so with regard to the applicable procedure on denial of registration. The entire conduct of assessee smacks of laches.

Since the affidavit is not valid affidavit nor it disclose any reason for condonation of delay resultantly the application for condoning the delay is dismissed, so discussion on the merit of the case is academic. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.