TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 1277X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the provision for condonation of delay cannot be permitted to be mis-used by statutory agencies like the appellant before us. The appellant being a statutory body is required to be more careful and prudent in pursuing a legal remedy. Non-filing of the appeal in time before the Tribunal shows total lack of coordination and sluggishness by the officials of the appellant. We deprecate the same. Assessee is required to explain the delay in filing the appeal. The assessee has failed to satisfy the conscious of this Tribunal that the assessee was bonafidely pursuing its legal remedies, and not filing the appeal in time was beyond its control. There is a huge delay of 1868 days in filing the appeal before us. We deem it inappropriate to condon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, 1961 and rejecting the application on the grounds which were required to be examined at the time of making assessment of the Appellant Board. 3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax, Kota has erred in not condoning the delay in filing application for registration under section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessee is an improvement trust sought registration under section 12A of the IT Act, 1961 vide Form No. 10A dated 28.05.2007. Along with the said form, a letter of even date 28.05.2007 was also enclosed whereby it has been mentioned that the appellant is a District Board as specified under section 10(20)(iii) of the IT Act, hence is exempt from income tax. On 28.03.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assed by the AO for the A.Y 2003-04 2004-05. The ld. CIT (A) vide order dated 10.02.2010 has allowed the appeal of the appellant and held as under :- In conclusion, in my view, being a subset of Municipal Council, Kota, it partook the character of and discharges responsibilities of a local authority, to which section 10(20) of the IT Act, 1961 is fully and squarely applicable. In complete negation of all this though and, in my view, through an odious comparison with the decision in case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti of Uttar Pradesh and a redundant reference to the General Clauses Act, the assessing officer came to the conclusion that the UIT, Kota was an AJP, to which section 10(20) of the IT Act, 1961 was not applicable. The co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal vide order dated 23.05.2011. 5.1. As mentioned herein above, the appellant trust has sought registration under section 12A of the IT Act by filing the application on 28.05.2007. The application of the Trust was dismissed by ld. CIT vide his order dated 28.11.2007 on the following reasons :- In fact the reason for not applying for the registration appears to be that even the UIT was conscious of the view that it, by no stretch, could have been called charitable Institution. If at all the applicant UIT is a Charitable Institution still the Law can not come to its rescue as it consciously slept over its right for seeking registration. The application in the instant case has been moved on 28.5.2007 that is more than four years ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4.2013 on the basis of Affidavit filed on 11.01.2016. 5.4. The ld. D/R for the Revenue vehemently opposed the application and has submitted that the appellant trust was not diligent in pursuing the remedies before the ld. CIT (A) and also before the Tribunal. 5.4. We have heard the rival parties and perused the material on record. In our view, the affidavit filed by the Accounts Officer of the appellant is lacking the necessary particulars and has been filed in a casual manner. In fact, the appellant has submitted that the post of Accounts Officer was lying vacant from 2008 to 2012 and the immediate subordinate position was also frequently changed and as such it was not possible for the appellant Trust to pursue and file appeal before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant had speculated of preferring the remedies under section 10(20) either before the Tribunal or before Hon ble High Court. We are of the opinion that the reasons shown by the appellant cannot fall within the parameters of sufficient cause so as to confer the appellant the benefit of condonation of delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The reasoning not to pursue the remedies before the Tribunal was a well thought decision and was not on account of any other reason. If we apply the test of a prudent litigant, it cannot be held that once the applicant came to know about the dismissal of the application for registration it will remain silent for a long period of more than 5 years. If we accept the contention of the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
