TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he instant appeal, it is undisputed that the assessee has been granted registration. However, the registration has been granted w.e.f. from the last day of the financial year 2002-03 whereas the scheme of the Act envisages that the registration should be granted from the first day of the financial year. We find the approach of the Ld. CIT contrary to the provisions of the Income Tax Act and therefore we direct the Ld. CIT to make suitable amendment in the registration certificate granted to the assessee u/s 12AA so as to make the registration effective from 1st April, 2002. - ITA No. 455/Del/2016 - - - Dated:- 20-9-2016 - SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Assessee : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. For The Revenue : Sh. Sunil Chander Sharma, CIT DR ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 29/09/2012 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax-Ghaziabad granting registration u/s 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act ). 2. The assessee is an authority constituted under the U.P. Urb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that there was a delay of 1875 days in filing the appeal. The Ld. AR submitted that when the assessee had received order dated 29/09/2010 passed by the Ld. CIT, Ghaziabad in pursuance to the order of the ITAT, an application u/s 154 of the Act was filed before the Ld. CIT well within time. Thereafter, an order rejecting assessee s application u/s 154 was passed on 29/05/2015. Against the said rejection, the assessee had again filed an appeal before the ITAT within time. Thereafter, after the dismissal of the assessee s appeal by the ITAT on 16/12/2015, the assessee has immediately filed this appeal on 29/01/2016. Thus, the assessee had acted in a bona fide manner and had proceeded to seek redressal of its grievances in a bona fide manner and, therefore, the delay of 1875 days ought to be condoned. On merits, the Ld. AR drew our attention to proviso to Section 12A (1) of the Act and submitted that in view of the mandate, the registration ought to have been granted w.e.f. 01/04/2002 instead of 31/03/2003 and submitted that suitable directions may be issued to the Ld. CIT in this regard. 4. The Ld. AR opposed the assessee s plea for condonation o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... more vigilant by visiting his advocate at short intervals to check up the progress of the litigation. But during these days when everybody is fully occupied with his own avocation of life, an omission to adopt such extra vigilance need not be used as ground to depict him as a litigant not aware of his responsibilities, and to visit him with drastic consequences. 9. It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the Court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to a want of acceptable explanation, whereas in certain other cases, delay of a very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. Once the Court accepts the explanation as sufficient, it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior Court should not disturb such finding, much less in revisional jurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was on wholly untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. But it is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ze injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to so. 5.3 In the light of the above cited judgments, if we examine the facts of the present case, it is apparent that assessee has been vigilant in its approach and has not neglected the Income Tax proceedings. The Hon ble Apex Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan (supra) has observed that the length of delay is immaterial. The acceptability of the explanation is the only criteria for condoning the delay. In a given case, delay of the shortest period of time may be un-condonable due to unacceptable explanation, whereas in certain other cases, delay of a long period can be condoned if the explanation is satisfactory. In every case of delay, there might be some omissions or negligence on the part of the assessee but to our mind such omission/negligence has to be weighed in light of facts and circumstances of each case. If the negligence or omission is a by-product of a deliberate attempt with mala fide intention for delaying the process of litigation which could give some benefit to the litigant, then probably the delay would not deserve to be condoned. However, if no mala fide can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
