TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 191X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I, ADVS. FOR THE RESPONDENT : SRI.Y.V.RAVIRAJ, ADV. JUDGMENT The appellant has called in question the order dated 7/1/2015 in ITA No.168/2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench, Panaji (ITAT for short), dismissing the appeal as having been barred by limitation. 2. Heard Sri.S.Parthasarathi, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. Y.V.Raviraj, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that, the appellant had filed an application under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for registration of trust. The said application had been rejected vide order dated 24/6/2011 by the Commissioner of Income Tax. This order was cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the Assessee was not aware of the law, he could not explain the reason for the delay occurred in filing the appeal . 4. After recording the aforementioned finding and adverting to the judgement in the case of Surinder Kumar Boveja Vs. CWT, 287 ITR 52 (Delhi), the tribunal dismissed the appeal as having been barred by limitation. 5. A careful perusal of the findings recorded by the Tribunal clearly points to the fact that the delay was sought to be explained on two grounds. Firstly, that the trust was under the bonafide impression that such a registration was not condition precedent for seeking relief under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act 1961 ( Act for short). Secondly, that the appellant Trust was advised wrongly. In order to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ehalf in the pleadings either in the form of statement of facts or affidavit to substantiate such contention. 9. Ignorance of law is no excuse. We may usefully refer to the judgement of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of The Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co.Ltd. vs. The Government of U.P. and Others reported in (1975) 4 SCC 378, wherein it is held as follows:- ......But we are in agreement with the High Court on the other two grounds. As mentioned earlier, the impugned assessments were made in 1949. The writ petition was filed in 1956. The explanation given by the petitioner for this long delay is that he did not know the correct legal position and he came to know about the same after the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
