TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 461X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om manual to e-filing and that the application for condonation of delay was made belatedly i.e., long after filing of Form-10 - HELD THAT:- Form-10 seeking exemption under Section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was filed on 31.03.2016 and the application seeking condonation of delay was filed on 06.09.2018; it is a settled principle of law that when the claim is made belatedly, it is open to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... related to the Assessment Year 2015-16 when e-filing was not yet prescribed; even otherwise, the answering respondent could have instructed the petitioner to make e-filing of the claim so that the petitioner would have had a fair treatment at the hands of the respondent-authorities; thus, there is an error apparent on the face of the record; and, c) since admittedly, the exemption of the kind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r-Trust claiming to be registered u/s.12A(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 having suffered disallowing of the amount of accumulation made u/s.11(2) 11(1)(a) had applied in Form-10 seeking exemption; the same came to be rejected on the ground that it was not e-filed despite the shift from manual to e-filing and that the application for condonation of delay was made belatedly i.e., long after filing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vide Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. NAGAPPA, ILR 1985 (2) KAR 2374 in the absence of statutory intent to the contrary; although, a proceeding arising under a Tax Statute is bit different from the Court proceedings, that difference does not come in the way of treating the ratio of the said decision as a general norm to be followed by quasi-judicial au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not justified in rejecting petitioner s claim for exemption for the Assessment Year 2015-16 on the grounds purported in the impugned order. In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds in part; the impugned order having been quashed, the matter is remitted back to the answering respondents for consideration afresh, within a period of three months in accordance with law. It is ope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
