Case Law Details
Bishnupur Public Education Institute Vs CIT (Exemption) (ITAT Kolkata)
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 provided in the Act while considering any issue for adjudication. Therefore, considering the above proposition, we are of the view that ld. CIT(Exemption) has rightly rejected the application of the assessee for grant of approval under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act. All these three appeals are rejected.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT KOLKATA
The present three appeals are directed against the common order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Kolkata dated 06.02.2020 passed under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee has filed applications on 11.02.2019 under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act for grant of approval as an Educational Institution in A.Ys. 201617, 2017-18 and 2018-19 respectively, though the assessee has been enjoying registration under section 12A but it filed applications for grant of approval under section 10(23C)(vi). According to the ld. CIT(Exemption), these applications were time-barred and, therefore, he rejected all the applications. The relevant finding recorded by the ld. CIT (Exemption) reads as under:-
“A prayer for condonation of delay in filing the application has been submitted vide letter dated 07.02.2019. The reason for delay in submission of application has been stated to be the ill-health of the President of the Society. While 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 period. It is trite law that the law of limitation is to be construed strictly.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
