×Latest Case Laws on Income Tax by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals in India
These are the latest case laws decided by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals (ITAT) of India on Income Tax which have been published recently. The case laws are open for discussion and we invite expert comments from our members on its applicability and effect on relevant issues.
The captioned appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 07.06.2011 passed by the Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) (in short ‘the Director’) rejecting the application of assessee dated 07.06.2008 seeking continuation of recognition under Section 80G of the Act.
2. The appellant before us is a Trust and a voluntary organisation engaged in conducting studies and programmes in the field of Astronomy. The assessee-trust was granted registration as a ‘charitable institution’ under Section 12A of the Act by CIT, Mumbai-4 vide order dated 15.06.1987. It has also been pointed out that the assessee-trust was also recognised under Section 80G of the Act right from Assessment Year 1997-98 till the last of the renewals dated 05.12.2005, which was upto 31.03.2008, i.e. upto Assessment Year 2008-09. Subsequently, vide application dated 17.06.2008, assessee made an application to the Director seeking continuation of recognition earlier granted under Section 80G of the Act. By way of the impugned order, the Director has rejected the application on the ground that the applicant-trust was not engaged in any charitable activity. As per the Director, the Profit & Loss Account of the assessee-trust for the last three
years shows that “no expenditure on account of the objects of the trust has been incurred/debited by the applicant-trust during the last three years period”. Against such a decision of the Director, assessee is in appeal before us. The appellant has raised the following Grounds of appeal :-
“Ground I : The DIT(E) erred in rejecting the Renewal application dt. 17-06-2008 for approval of the Institution for the purposes of Sec. 80G long after the expiry of Six months stipulated in Sec. 80G(5) read with rule II AA.
The DIT(E) failed to appreciate that
(i) All the requirements for Renewal applications were duly accompanied.
(ii) Having complied with all the requirements the order on the renewal application was required to be issued before 31-12-2008.
(iii) In the absence of any action within such period of six months the renewal was deemed to have been allowed the appellant therefore contends that the order of rejection made on 07-06-2011 beyond the statutory stipulation is without jurisdiction, in effective and bad in Law.
Ground II : Without prejudice to the above contention the applicant further contends that :
(i) The DIT(E)’s, observations in Para 2 of the rejection order dt. 07-06-2011 is wholly unwarranted since the requirements mentioned there in were already placed before him and the appellant holds an acknowledgement dated 17-06-2008.
(ii) The notice dt. 07-01-2011 is beyond the stipulated statutory period and is therefore without jurisdiction and is ineffective and bad in Law.
Ground III : The appellant contends that the law as it stood before the amendment on 01-09-2009 was applicable to this case and therefore assumption made by DIT(E) in Para 5 are based on surmises and are unwarranted and the rejection based on these observations and the conclusion drawn therefrom is not justified.”
3. At the outset, it was brought out that there is a delay of 324 days in filing of appeal before the Tribunal. Explaining the delay, the Learned Representative referred to an Affidavit furnished by one Mr. Sagun Radhakrishna Kerkar, a Trustee of the assessee-trust. A copy of the said Affidavit dated 22.01.2014 has been placed on record. In terms of the averments contained therein, reasons for the delay have been explained on account of illness of one, Shri Sameer Kadam, Trustee of the assessee-trust during the relevant period. It has been pointed out that the said Shri Sameer Kadam was the Trustee looking after the income-tax matters of the trust and due to his recurrent illness, there was a delay in filing of the appeal. It has been contended that the delay is unintentional and it may be condoned,