Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2020 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 461 - HC - Income TaxExemption u/s 11 - disallowing of the amount of accumulation made u/s.11(2) & 11(1)(a) - E-filing of Form-10 - Petitioner-Trust not e-filed despite the shift from manual to e-filing and that the application for condonation of delay was made belatedly i.e., long after filing of Form-10 - HELD THAT:- Form-10 seeking exemption under Section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was filed on 31.03.2016 and the application seeking condonation of delay was filed on 06.09.2018; it is a settled principle of law that when the claim is made belatedly, it is open to the claimant to offer explanation for the delay so brooked, subsequent to making the claim also vide Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. NAGAPPA [1985 (6) TMI 199 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] in the absence of statutory intent to the contrary; although, a proceeding arising under a Tax Statute is bit different from the Court proceedings, that difference does not come in the way of treating the ratio of the said decision as a general norm to be followed by quasi-judicial authorities as well, as long as there is a provision for condoning the delay; b) the purported ground mentioned in the impugned order for rejecting petitioner’s claim for exemption u/s.11(2) of the Act that he had not uploaded Form–10 by e-filing is fault some inasmuch as, the claim related to the Assessment Year 2015-16 when e-filing was not yet prescribed; even otherwise, the answering respondent could have instructed the petitioner to make e-filing of the claim so that the petitioner would have had a fair treatment at the hands of the respondent-authorities; thus, there is an error apparent on the face of the record; and, c) since admittedly, the exemption of the kind which the petitioner had sought for is granted for the subsequent Assessment Years, the respondent-authorities are not justified in rejecting petitioner’s claim for exemption for the Assessment Year 2015-16 on the grounds purported in the impugned order. In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds in part; the impugned order having been quashed, the matter is remitted back to the answering respondents for consideration afresh, within a period of three months in accordance with law.
|