TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he legal position that there is no power to condone the delay in filing an application under Section 10(23C) of the Act, this Court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to condone the delay. However, this Court is inclined to give appropriate direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner's application as an application for the subsequent assessment year, namely, 2013-2014 in accordance with law. Such direction is issued considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and that the petitioner could not have made an application for the subsequent assessment year 2013-2014, since their application for assessment year 2012-2013 was still pending consideration and the impugned order came to be passed only on 13.11.2013. The respondent is at liberty to consider the amended objectives of the petitioner Trust. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed and the finding rendered by the respondent that the petitioner's application cannot be considered as the same is time barred is affirmed and the finding with regard to objectives of the Society by respondent holding that the Society cannot be said to be solely for education purpose is set a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the amended objects. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Shri Anand Rishi Jain Society v. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, Chennai and others (W.P.No.33485 of 2012, dated 07.11.2014) and the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in an appeal filed against the said order in W.A.No.31 of 2015, dated 03.02.2015 (CCI and others v. Shri Anand Rishi Jain Society) 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Centre for Individual and Corporate Action (CICA) v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (T.C.A.No.283 to 288 of 2014, dated 23.09.2014) to buttress the submission that when the respondent chose to reject the application as time barred should not have ventured to adjudicate the matter on merits. 6. Learned standing counsel for the respondent submitted that under the provisions of the Act, there is no power to condone the delay and this issue was considered by the Orissa High Court in 2009 309 ITR 50 (Roland Educational and Charitable Trust v. Chief Commissioner, Income Tax), in which the Court distinguished the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the impugned order, the respondent has proceeded on both grounds, which cannot be approved by this Court. 10. On the question of delay, the contention of the revenue is that there is no power conferred on the respondent to condone the delay. Nevertheless, this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, had examined the facts and circumstances of each case and when it is convinced that the peculiar facts called for exercise of discretion, the delay was condoned. At this stage, it is beneficial to refer to the decision in Roland Educational and Charitable Trust (supra), the relevant paragraphs of the judgment are extracted below: 14. Hence, the provisions of Section 10(23C)(vi) override the provisions of the Limitation Act. Therefore, it will not be appropriate/permissible to rely on the provisions of any other statute including the Limitation Act for the purpose of considering the matter relating to condonation of delay. 15. The Chief Commissioner of Income-tax being a creature of the statute cannot travel beyond the statutory provisions. Law is well settled that court cannot derive jurisdiction apart from the statute (vide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y such power. 28. For the reasons stated above, the answer is certainly in the negative. 11. The petitioner had placed reliance on the decision of Padmashree Krutharth Acharya Institute of Engineering and Technology (supra) which has been distinguished by the Division Bench in the subsequent decision in Roland Educational and Charitable Trust (supra). I am in respectful agreement with the decision in Roland (supra) and the petitioner cannot rest their case on the decision in Padmashree (supra). 12. Coming back to the facts, on receipt of show cause notice dated 21.10.2013, the petitioner submitted their first reply on 29.10.2013, wherein they have pointed out that they could not finalise the accounts for the year 2012-2013 earlier and could do it only by the end of September, 2012, as they were entrusted with huge responsibility of organizing and conducting a sports event by the Education Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu in July, 2012, and it was the first time, the institution was entrusted with such a task. After enclosing the relevant Government Orders in that regard, the petitioner pointed out that the event comprised of conducting team sport events and f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Court is inclined to give appropriate direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner's application as an application for the subsequent assessment year, namely, 2013-2014 in accordance with law. Such direction is issued considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and that the petitioner could not have made an application for the subsequent assessment year 2013-2014, since their application for assessment year 2012-2013 was still pending consideration and the impugned order came to be passed only on 13.11.2013. The respondent is at liberty to consider the amended objectives of the petitioner Trust. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed and the finding rendered by the respondent that the petitioner's application cannot be considered as the same is time barred is affirmed and the finding with regard to objectives of the Society by respondent holding that the Society cannot be said to be solely for education purpose is set aside. Consequently, the matter is remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration and the petitioner's application is directed to be considered for the assessment year 2013-2014 in accordance with l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
