TMI Blog2006 (5) TMI 422X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to know that section 10( 22 ) was omitted with effect from 1-4-1999. We had been advised that till that time, registration under section 12A and filing of the return of income was not compulsory. We were not aware of the said amendment for quite a long time. Even one among us is an advocate, yet it was not possible to keep tract of the amendment of the Income-tax Law, since. We never practice on income-tax side. As soon as we came to know of the amendment during the year 2001, we have filed the application. We respectfully submit that delay in filing the application was not intentional, but due to unavoidable circumstances. The delay is bona fide . Ours being a purely social service and charitable institution, we kindly request you to condone the delay and grant us the Registration from the date of inception and oblige." 4. Vide letter dated 25-4-2003, the assessee further explained the reasons for the delay as under : "(1) As we were under bona fide impression as our trust was formed for only education purpose and, therefore, the trust was for the educational purpose and charitable purpose and we were under the bona fide impression that it is exempt from tax under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y legal requirements or defiance of law can be easily explained as caused due to ignorance and hence not punishable will make the administration of any law as impossible and this cannot be the intention behind any legislation." 6. Before us, the ld. A.R. submitted that the income of the trust was exempt under section 10( 22 ) of the Income-tax Act till the assessment year 1998-99. Section 10(22) was omitted with effect from 1-4-1999. The appellant was not aware of the omission of section 10( 22 ). As and when the appellant became aware, it applied for registration of trust. The delay in this case is not of 12 years but is of 1 year and 7 months. The ld. A.R. stated that the trust be granted registration w.e.f. 1-4-1999. The ld. A.R. relied on the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of All India Primary Teachers Federation v. DIT [1983] 140 ITR 50 ( sic ) where it was held that when there was no reason to disbelieve plausible explanation of assessee that its office bearers could not have had any reason to see applicability of provisions of taxability aspect of assessee, there was genuine and bona fide grounds for delay in filing application for registration an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation before the expiry of the period aforesaid for sufficient reasons. 12. The expression "before the expiry of the period" in proviso ( i ) of clause ( a ) of section 12A requires sufficiency of reasons which prevented the person from making the application within one year as required and not the reasons for the period beyond the prescribed period of one year. Hence, total period of delay is not to be explained and the authority is required to examine whether sufficient reasons existed for not making the application within the prescribed period of one year. Reliance is placed on the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Society of Divine Providence v. Union of India [1999] 235 ITR 339. 13. The jurisdictional High Court in the case of CWT v. Chikmagalur Club [1992 ] 197 ITR 609 ( sic ) had an occasion to consider the levy of penalty under section 18(1)( a ). In this case, the assessee contended that it was a club registered under Karnataka Societies Registration Act and is an AOP and, therefore, not susceptible to wealth tax. This was bona fide belief of the assessee. The ld. High Court held that a cause could be said a reasonable cause, if it is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... will be relevant to quote the following observations at page 339 of the above judgment. "Moreover, it must be remembered that there is no presumption that every person knows the law. It is often said that every one is presumed to know the law, but that is not a correct statement: there is no such maxim known the law. Over a hundred and thirty years ago, Maula, J. pointed out in Martindale v. Falkner (1846) 2 CB 706 : "There is no presumption in this country that every person knows the law : it would be contrary to common sense and reason if it were so". Scrutton L.J. also once said : "It is impossible to know all the statutory laws and not very possible to know all the common laws". But it was Lord Atkin who, as in so many other spheres, put the point in its proper context when he said in Evans v. Bartlam [1937] AC 473 ". . . the fact is that there is not and never has been a presumption that every one knows that law. There is a rule that ignorance of law does not excuse, a maxim of every different scope and application". It is, therefore, not possible to presume, in the absence of any material placed before the Court, that the appellant had full knowledge of its right to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
