9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 744X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the first respondent rejected the petition filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing Form-10 on the reason that the delay was not satisfactorily explained. 2. Following are the brief facts and circumstances, as projected by the petitioner, which warranted the petitioner to file the present writ petition:- The petitioner Trust was formed on 10.12.1997 with an aim to provide rehabilitation to the people, who are victims of communal violence in the City of Coimbatore during November/December 1997. The petitioner claims to have received contribution from the public for providing relief to the riot victims. The petitioner filed return of income on 18.09.2001 for the assessment year 1998-99 declaring 'Nil' income and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same. However, the first respondent through the impugned order rejected the petition for condonation of delay by stating that the reasons for delay have not been properly explained. 3. A counter affidavit is filed by the respondents, wherein it is stated as follows: The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 1998-99 on 18.09.2001, declaring 'Nil' income and the return of income was lodged. The assessee filed application in Form 10A only on 23.05.2002 though the Trust was created on 10.12.1997. The registration under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was granted with effect from 01.04.2002. However, in pursuant to the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the Registration under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herefore, the petitioner was justified in filing such Form 10 immediately after the order of the first respondent granting registration with retrospective effect from 10.12.1997. Therefore, the learned counsel contended that the first respondent is not justified in rejection the application for condonation of delay simply by saying that the petitioner has not explained the delay. 5. On the other hand, Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue submitted that the condonation of delay is not automatic and on the other hand, the petitioner has to satisfy the Authorities for filing such belated Form 10. She also submitted that the petitioner seeks to accumulate the amount for utilisation to the next financial year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment year 1998-99 and the last date for filing such return was 31.10.1998. Consequently, the Form 10 ought to have been filed on or before 31.10.1998. But in any event, filing of Form No.10 would arise only when the petitioner enjoys the benefit of registration under Section 12AA. Admittedly, on the last date viz., 31.10.1998, the petitioner was not enjoying such benefit, however such benefit was granted with retrospective effect by order dated 02.02.2005. Once such an order is passed, the petitioner made application for condonation of delay in filing such Form 10 before the first respondent. 8.Therefore, I find that the above stated facts and circumstances would show that the petitioner has explained the delay in filing the Form 10 sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
