TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 1158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the date of registration under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act (RSRA), 1958 (on 9th Nov., 1985), therefore, you are directed to attend this office on 22nd Aug., 2006 at 11.00 AM and explain the reasons for the delay. The assessee filed condonation petition on 2nd April, 2007 stating therein that due to lack of awareness of the law, we could not apply for registration of the society in time and when it came to our notice, we immediately applied for the same. Through this letter, it was prayed that the delay in filing the application may be condoned. It was also suggested in the alternative that in case the delay is not condoned, registration may be granted from 1st April, 2005 in view of cl. (ii) of proviso to s. 12A(a) of the Act. The CIT had inquired into the nature and objects of this Committee/Institution and had found that its objectives are undisputedly charitable in nature and, therefore, it deserves registration under s. 12A(a) of the Act. Later on, on 14th June, 2007, the learned CIT registered the assessee under s. 12A(a) w.e.f. 1st April, 2005. 3. But despite fact that certificate of registration under the Act was granted, the appellant is aggrieved on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of registration. The assessee submitted replies vide letter dt. 2nd April, 2007 stating full facts and the reasons mentioned therein were on account of lack of awareness, of the law. The relevant paragraph is being reproduced hereunder : But due to lack of awareness of the law we could not apply for the registration of the society in time and when it came to our notice, we applied for the registration. From the perusal of the above you will observe that your predecessor was requested so as to condone the delay and to grant registration retrospectively. Now, I want to draw your kind attention towards the provision of s. 12AA of the IT Act. The relevant provisions are being reproduced hereunder : (2) Every order granting or refusing registration under el. (b) of sub-s. (1) / shall be passed before the expiry of six month from the end of the month in which the application was received under cl. (a) or cl. (aa) of sub-s. (1) of s. 12A. In this respect from the perusal of above you will observe that order has to be passed within six month from the date of submission of the application. In case of the assessee an application was submitted on 30th March, 2006. The six mon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. The judgment of Supreme Court is very clear regarding the subject. As far as the ignorance of law is concerned I want to draw your kind attention towards the order of Tribunal Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur reported in 30 TW 158 the relevant portion is being reproduced as under : In this case the Honb'le Supreme Court has held that Court should adopt rational, common sense and pragmatic approach. And reliance can also be placed on the judgment of apex Court in the case of Motilal Padampat Sugar Mill Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh Ors . [1979]118 ITR 326 (SC). In this case it was held that 'there is no presumption that even; person knows the law. It is often said that everyone is presumed to know the law, but that is not correct statement. There is no such maxim known to the law. From the perusal of the above you will observe that there was reasonable cause made known to the CIT Bikaner regarding delay. Though the matter became barred by limitation by that time but the reason was submitted to the CIT, Bikaner. In above mentioned fact and circumstances you will observe that the orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur against the order of the CIT, Bikaner dt. 14th June, 2007. The appeal is barred by limitation. That the appeal in question is delayed substantially on account of ignorance of law and as per the advice of the tax consultant of the Society at that time. That now the present consultants of the Society advised that an appeal should have been submitted. It has also been made known that no order can be passed on an application under s. 12A of the IT Act after period of six months from the date of application. That since the Members of Society were not aware about the IT Act and consequences thereof but the consultant advised that it makes no difference if the registration to the Society has been granted w.e.f. 1st April, 2005 in place of dt. 9th Nov., 1985 whereas the society was created and running for fulfilment of aims and objects thereof after creation. That the application under s. 12A of the IT Act submitted by the Society was decided by the CIT, Bikaner vide order dt. 14th June, 2007 i.e. after expiry of 6 months from the date of submitting of the application. That an application in respect of condonation of delay was also submitted before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld receive a liberal construction. 8. Similarly, Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has very succinctly dealt with this issue threadbare while deciding the case of CIT v. Ram Kishan Gupta [2007] 295 ITR 578. It has been held in this case as under: In view of the aforesaid discussions, we are of the view that the sufficient cause had been brought on record to condone the delay of five days. In the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order dt. 26th July, 1999, is set aside. The delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned and the Tribunal is directed to decide the appeal on the merits in accordance with law. Since the appeal was filed in the year 1992, it would be appropriate that the Tribunal expedites the hearing of the appeal and decide the same within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The appeal stands allowed as above, however in the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 9. The Hon'ble apex Court has laid down a firm law vide which 'ignorance of law' has been treated as a 'sufficient cause' and reasonable excuse for any default committed under the law when th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... letter to the effect that it would be availing of the partial exemption. The appellant thereupon filed a writ petition which it amended and in the amended petition raised the plea that the Chief Secretary, acting on behalf of the State Government, had given an unequivocal assurance that the appellant would be entitled to exemption from payment of sales-tax for a period of three years from the date of commencement of production, intending or knowing that it would be acted upon by the appellant, and the appellant, relying on that assurance, established the factory by investing a large amount, and, therefore, the State Government was bound to Honour the assurance and exempt Vanaspati manufactured and sold by the appellant for a period of three years from 2nd July, 1970. The High Court rejected the plea. On appeal to the Supreme Court: Held, reversing the decision of the High Court, that the facts necessaiy for invoking the doctrine of promissory estoppel were clearly present and the Government was bound to carry out the representation and exempt the appellant from sales-tax in respect of sales of Vanaspati effected by it in Uttar Pradesh for a period of three years from the date of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsideration for the promise and the promise is not recorded in the forni of a formal contract as required by Article 299 of the Constitution. Since the doctrine of promissory estoppel is an equitable doctrine, it must yield when equity so requires. If it can be shown by the Government that having regard to the facts as they have subsequently transpired, it would be inequitable to hold the Government to the promise made by it, the Court would not raise an equity in favour of the promisee and enforce the promise against the Government, because, on the facts, equity would not require that the Government should be held bound by the promise made by it. When the Government is able to show that in view of the facts which have transpired since the making of the promise, public interest would be prejudiced if the Government were required to carry out the promise, the Court would have to balance the public interest in the Government carrying out a promise made to a citizen which has induced the citizen to act upon it and alter his position and the public interest likely to suffer if the promise were required to be carried out by the Government and determine which way the equity lies. It w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed from exercising its legislative. function by resort to the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Per curiam : (i) If the U.P. Sales-tax Act, 1948, did not contain a provision enabling the Government to grant exemption it would not be possible to enforce the representation against the Government, because the Government cannot be compelled to act contrary to the statute, but since s. 4A of the U.P. Sales-tax Act, 1948, confers power on the Government to grant exemption from sales-tax, the Government can legitimately be held bound by its promise to exempt the appellant from payment of sales-tax. It is true that taxation is a sovereign or Governmental function, but no distinction can be made between the exercise of a sovereign or Governmental function and a trading or business activity of the Government, so far as the doctrine of promissory estoppel is concerned. (ii) There is no presumption that every person knows the law. It is often said that everyone is presumed to know the law, but that is not a correct statement: there is no such maxim known to the law. Decision of the Allahabad High Court reversed. 10. Therefore, taking the cumulative effect of these decisions, partic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
