9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (5) TMI 12X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as delay of 224 days in filing the appeal. CM.3907/2010, for condonation of delay in filing the appeal has also been filed. 2. The impugned order having been received by the appellant on 04.11.2008, the period of limitation prescribed for filing the appeal expired on 04.03.2009, whereas the appeal has been filed on 14.10.2009. A perusal of the application would show that on 23.02.2009 DGIT(E) approved filing of appeal and sent the file to the Assessing Officer on 24.02.2009. The Assessing Officer, who was required to comply with the order, proceeded on leave on 27.02.2009 without sending the file to the office of Senior Standing Counsel of the Department for the purpose of drafting the appeal. He joined the office on 16.03.2009 but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hing charge of the office held by him. The new incumbent was required to examine atleast urgent and time bound files, received by him from his predecessor. Had he done so, he would have come to know that the appeal required to be filed in this case had already been delayed and, therefore, he should immediately send the file to the office of the Senior Standing Counsel for the purpose of drafting the appeal. We, therefore, find it difficult to condone so much delay in filing of this appeal. 4. We have also examined the appeal on merits. The assessee foundation was setup in order to provide fees, books, equipments and scholarship, etc. to needy students, to help mentally retarded, crippled and other physically handicapped children in their r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... activities in accordance with its objects as enumerated in its Memorandum of Association and that since there was no material on record to suggest that the assessee had infringed the provisions of Section 13(1) of the Act, there was no reason to deny benefit of exemption to the trust. Confirmation from 10 more donees were filed before Income Tax Commissioner (Appeals) and thus the assessee filed confirmation from 74 out of 76 parties to which donations were given by it. The addition made in respect of two institutions namely Gandhi Smarak and Kaivalya Charities were, however, upheld. 6. During the course of hearing before the Tribunal, it was pointed out that the Chairman of the assessee was former Cabinet Secretary whereas the other Direc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal is perverse in any manner. 9. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, both have found that the organizations to which donations were given by the assessee during assessment year in question were genuine charity organizations. There was no evidence before the Assessing Officer to show that these were not genuine organizations or were not engaged in social and charitable activities. The Assessing Officer attributed personal elements to these donations without even indicating any circumstance which could give rise to such an inference. The order passed by the Assessing Officer does not show that the Directors of HCL Perot Systems were connected with these organizations o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
