TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (11) TMI 668
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act. Later on at the petitioner-society's request the application was confined to seeking exemption under section 10(23C)(via) of the Act which provides exemption in respect of hospital or other institution for reception and treatment of persons suffering from illness. The DGIT(E,) after examining the relevant documents and other submissions of the petitioner-society, rejected the grant of exemption under section 10(23C)(via) of the Act by his order dated November 28, 2008. 3. Dr. Rakesh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner-society, submitted that the DGIT(E) had passed the impugned order without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner-society and thus violated the principles of natural justice. Mr. Gupta further submitted that though there was a delay in filing the application on the part of the petitioner-society and there being no provision for condonation of delay in filing the application, yet the DGIT(E) in exercise of his judicial power of granting approval under section 10(23C) of the Act should have condoned the delay in the interest of justice as sufficient cause was shown by the petitioner society. 4. Mr. Gupta further submitted....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Court in American Hotel and Lodging Association Educational Institute v. CBDT [2008] 301 ITR 86 (SC) to submit that even in cases where approval has already been granted, the prescribed authority is empowered not to renew or even withdraw the approval in case there is a violation of the provisions of the Act. She submitted that, therefore, the principle of res judicata does not apply to the facts of the present case. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, we find that the application was admittedly filed beyond the prescribed date and the sole explanation of delay given by the petitioner-society in the letter dated October 21, 2008, was that the provision was a new one. It is a settled position of law that ignorance of law is not an excuse. The question whether the DGIT(E)'s power of approval under section 10(23C) of the Act is judicial or administrative in nature is immaterial in view of the unconvincing explanation offered by the petitioner-society. Consequently, we are of the opinion that the application filed by the petitioner-society was barred by limitation. But having regard to the fact that we have heard the matter, we are di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Thane v. Vidyut Metallics Ltd. [2007] 8 SCC 688, 694 ; [2007] 9 RC 521, 527, wherein it has been held as under : "18. So far as the proposition of law is concerned, it is well settled and needs no further discussion. In taxation matters, the strict rule of res judicata as envisaged by section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has no application. As a general rule, each year's assessment is final only for that year and does not govern later years, because it determines the tax for a particular period. It is, therefore, open to the Revenue/taxing authority to consider the position of the assessee every year for the purpose of determining and computing the liability to pay tax or octroi on that basis in subsequent years. A decision taken by the authorities in the previous year would not estop or operate as res judicata for the subsequent year (vide Maharana Mills P. Ltd. v. ITO [1959] 36 ITR 350 (SC) ; AIR 1959 SC 881, Raja Bahadur Visheshwara Singh v. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 685 (SC) ; AIR 1961 SC 1062, Instalment Supply P. Ltd. v. Union of India [1961] 12 STC 489 (SC) ; AIR 1962 SC 53, New Jehangir Vakil Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR (SC) 137. Amalgamated Coalfields....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pt issued by the society to anyone in the Mittal family for the donations received . . . 4. Considering all these facts, it was obvious that the applicant's books of account were manipulated and its activities were not genuine and charitable . . . 6. However, the applicant filed the affidavits of the following persons but did not produce them for examination : (i) Dr. Anurag Dixit (ii) Sh. Sarvesh Kumar Further, it did not file any affidavit in the case of Sh. Dinesh Kumar Yadav and also did not produce him for examination. The evidence filed in respect of these three persons and the facts found from the salary registers of the applicant are discussed hereafter. 7 . . . As per his appointment letter (annexure B3 and B4) filed by the applicant, he was appointed to the post on May 17, 2005, and as per his resignation letter filed before me (annexure B5 to the order), he resigned, with effect from July 31, 2005. However, the examination of the salary register reveals that he was shown to have been paid salary as under : Sl. No. in the salary register Month/Year Pay in Rs. 11 April, 2005 8,500 11 ....