TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1947X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exemption under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act. We find merit in the plea of assessee. Rule 2 provides that application for approval shall be made in Form 56D by the institution and clause 3 provides that approval of CBDT or the Chief Commissioner or the Director General, as the case may be, shall at any one time have effect for a period not exceeding three assessment years. Explanation to Rule 2CA provides that for the purpose of this rule, the Chief Commissioner or Director General means the Chief Commissioner or Director General to whom the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction to the assessee, is subordinate. It is also provided that application has to be made to the Commissioner, who in turn, shall forward the same to Chief Commissioner or the Director General. Taking the stock of the factual aspects of the case, application in Form No.56D was filed before the CIT-5, Pune on 13.03.2006, under which the assessee is seeking exemption for block of three years starting from assessment year 2005-06 and 2007-08. The Tribunal for assessment years 2005-06 and 2007-08 have already held the assessee entitled to the aforesaid exemption. Consequently, we hold that the assessee is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case, wherein against the assessee, proceedings starting from assessment year 2002-03 were pending. The question which arises is whether the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause in filing the appeal late before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee before us has pointed out that the issue raised in present appeal now stands covered by different orders of Tribunal and lenient view may be taken in the factual aspects of the assessee. 4. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue however, has strongly objected to the condonation of delay in filling the appeal late by the assessee and it has been stressed that where the matter was old and the assessee was ignorant for almost five years before exercising his duty of filing appeal before the Tribunal, the delay in the case is not explainable. It is alleged that the assessee lacks sincerity and seriousness towards legal procedure and where the deliverance of justice is complete and absolute when it was done within reasonable time, then request was made to reject the petition for condonation of delay. 5. Admittedly, the receipt of order of CIT(A) is on 30.04.2010 by the assessee, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be preferred. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee has relied on various other decisions of various Benches of Tribunal, which are being relied upon on similar issue. 7. Before parting, we may also refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Nehru Vs. ACIT reported in 101 taxmann.com 191 (SC), wherein the delay of 1662 days was condoned as there was acute financial crisis and multiple legal proceedings pending and hence the Court held that there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Another point which was considered in the case of Anil Kumar Nehru Vs. ACIT (supra) was that where the Courts have to decide question of law between parties in any case in respect of earlier assessment years, then explanation of assessee should have been accepted and the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned. In the present case also before us, the issue has been decided by the Tribunal for earlier years and since the issue stands covered by earlier order of Tribunal, we proceed to address the issue raised on merits after condoning the delay in filing the present appeal late by 1784 days. 8. Now, coming to the merits of issue raised, the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A) noted the assessee to have sought approval only for assessment year 2005-06 and not for subsequent two assessment years. The assessee had sought approval for assessment year 2006-07 i.e. the year under appeal in other Form No.56D, dated 26.10.2006 filed along with return of income. With respect to the said application, it was pointed out that the same was filed along with return of income, was not a valid application as the same should have been filed during the financial year and not after the close of financial year. 12. Then the CIT(A) addressed the second issue of deemed registration, where the Commissioner has not disposed of the application within period of 12 months from the end of the month in which such application was filed. Reference was made to ninth proviso to section 10(23C) of the Act, which provided that an application made on or after 13.07.2006 i.e. the date on which Taxation Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2006 received the assent of the President of India and it was observed that the said proviso was not applicable to the application submitted by the assessee i.e. first application which was filed along with return of income for assessment year 2005-06 and also oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deeming the authority below that application for approval of claim of exemption under section 10(23C) of the Act has been allowed by the Chief Commissioner. The Tribunal thus, directed the Assessing Officer to frame assessment for assessment year 2005-06 afresh treating the assessee as enjoying approval of exemption under section 10(23C) of the Act for the claim period in its application dated 13.03.2006. 15. Consequent to the assessment order passed in assessment year 2005-06, the Assessing Officer had reopened the assessment proceedings for assessment years 2002-03 to 2004-05 and also completed assessment proceedings for assessment year 2007-08. The Tribunal while deciding the appeal for captioned assessment years in ITA Nos.1913 to 1916/PN/2013, vide order dated 30.11.2015 had applied the ratio laid down by the larger Bench of Hon ble Allahabad High Court in CIT Vs. Muzafar Nagar Development Authority in Income Tax Appeal No.348 of 2008, order dated 05.02.2015 and held the assessee not entitled to the aforesaid exemption under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act, in the absence of any approval being granted by the prescribed authority. The Tribunal further in Miscellaneous Applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue amounting to review of its own order by the Tribunal was held to be not permissible under law. 17. So, the situation now which arises after different orders of Tribunal is that taking cognizance of application filed before the Commissioner on 13.03.2006, which was not disposed of by the CCIT within period of six months as envisaged in the Act, the Tribunal vide different orders relating to assessment years 2005-06 and 2007-08 have held that it is case of deemed approval where the application was not disposed of within stipulated time and hence, the assessee was eligible to claim exemption under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act. The year under appeal before us is assessment year 2006-07 and the assessee is also relying on the said application dated 13.03.2006 filed before the Commissioner which was not disposed of within time and the case of assessee is that deemed approval is thus, granted to the assessee and the assessee is eligible to claim exemption under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act. We find merit in the plea of assessee. 18. Before parting, we may also refer to provisions of Rule 2CA(i) which were prevalent from 03.04.2001 to 01.06.2007 i.e. before its amendment, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
