Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2022 (5) TMI 1080

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ts of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. -vs.- Harish Chandra [ 1996 (4) TMI 519 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] as well as Union of India -vs.- Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Limited [ 1996 (5) TMI 87 - SUPREME COURT] and held that where there is no provision to empower the statutory authority to condone the delay, than the authority cannot condoned. The adjudicating authorities under the Income Tax Act are quasi judicial authorities. They can grant approval with retrospective effect if such mechanism is provided in the Act. There is no such provision nor there is any power to condone the delay after considering the reasonable reasons. A reasonable cause can be taken into cognizance for condoning the delay, if such provision is prov .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... le it is true, that the President of the Society was severely ill during this period, the prayer for condonation on this ground alone cannot be accepted as an institute which is having a turnover of Rs. 6.08 crores, 4.86 crores and 10.32 crores in Assessment years 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 has to have someone to comply with the legal provisions in the absence of the President. It is highly unlikely that an institute having turnover of such magnitude will not have any other capable person to apply for registration on behalf of the institute. Therefore, a delay of more than three years, two years and one year respectively cannot be condoned. These applications are, therefore, rejected as they have not been filed within the limitation perio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y. Section 10(23C)(vi) has direct bearing on the controversy, therefore, we deem it appropriate to take note of the relevant part of this section. It reads as under:- CHAPTER III INCOMES WHICH DO NOT FORM PART OF TOTAL INCOME. Incomes not included in total income. 10. In computing the total income of a previous year of any person, any income falling within any of the following clauses shall not be included- (1) agricultural income; ******************************* (vi) any university or other educational institution existing solely for educational purposes and not for purposes of profit, other than those mentioned in sub-clause (iiiab) or sub-clause (iiiad) and which may be approved by the prescribed authority, or (via) any hospital or other .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... authority, before approving any fund or trust or institution or any university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution, under sub-clause (iv) or sub-clause (v) or sub-clause (vi) or sub-clause (via), may call for such documents (including audited annual accounts) or information from the fund or trust or institution or any university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution, as the case may be, as it thinks necessary in order to satisfy itself about the genuineness of the activities of such fund or trust or institution or any university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution, as the case may be, and the compliance of such require .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ith law. Such direction is issued considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and that the petitioner could not have made an application for the subsequent assessment year 2013-2014, since their application for assessment year 2012-2013 was still pending consideration and the impugned order came to be passed only on 13.11.2013. The respondent is at liberty to consider the amended objectives of the petitioner Trust. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed and the finding rendered by the respondent that the petitioner's application cannot be considered as the same is time barred is affirmed and the finding with regard to objectives of the Society by respondent holding that the Society cannot be said to be sol .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates