TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 156
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has established and administering an Educational Institution under the name and style of All Angels Matriculation Higher Secondary School . The petitioner is registered under Section 12A(a) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter the Act ), vide proceedings dated 30.07.1990. 3. In the assessment year 2012-2013, the petitioner filed an application in Form No.56D on 22.11.2012 seeking exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act. The respondent issued a show cause notice dated 21.10.2013 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why their application should not be rejected on two grounds; (a) it is not filed within the time period specified in the 14th Proviso to Section 10(23C)(vi), i.e. on or before 30th September of the relevant asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Centre for Individual and Corporate Action (CICA) v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (T.C.A.No.283 to 288 of 2014, dated 23.09.2014) to buttress the submission that when the respondent chose to reject the application as time barred should not have ventured to adjudicate the matter on merits. 6. Learned standing counsel for the respondent submitted that under the provisions of the Act, there is no power to condone the delay and this issue was considered by the Orissa High Court in 2009 309 ITR 50 (Roland Educational and Charitable Trust v. Chief Commissioner, Income Tax), in which the Court dist....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f 2014, dated 23.09.2014) and it was held that the appellate Tribunal (in that case) adopted a procedure which is highly prejudicial to the assessee inasmuch as it having decided not to proceed with the matter on the ground of delay, cannot unilaterally decide the appeal on merits, moreso when the assessee was not given proper opportunity to contest the matter in the main appeal on merits. 9. It may be true that the show cause notice issued by the respondent dated 21.10.2013 pointed out two grounds; (i) the application was filed beyond the time limit specified under the 14th Proviso to Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act and (ii) the petitioner Society did not exist solely for educational purpose. In my view, when the authority takes a decision....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o, AIR 1981 SC 537, UOI v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal, AIR 1992 SC 96, Karnal Improvement Trust v. Prakash Wanti [1995] 5 SCC 159 and Collector of Central Excise v. Flock (India)(Pvt.) Ltd., AIR 2000 SC 2484. 16..................... in Padmashree Krutarth Acharya Institute of Engineering and Technology v. Chief CIT [2009] 309 ITR 13 wherein this Court held that though the application for grant of approval for exemption had been filed by an educational institution belatedly, it should have been considered on the merits. This Court further held that in deciding such questions the Commissioner decides the rights of the parties and, therefore, has to act in a quasi-judicial capacity. He has to decide rights of the parties after a hearing. Any auth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er. 28. For the reasons stated above, the answer is certainly in the negative." 11. The petitioner had placed reliance on the decision of Padmashree Krutharth Acharya Institute of Engineering and Technology (supra) which has been distinguished by the Division Bench in the subsequent decision in Roland Educational and Charitable Trust (supra). I am in respectful agreement with the decision in Roland (supra) and the petitioner cannot rest their case on the decision in Padmashree (supra). 12. Coming back to the facts, on receipt of show cause notice dated 21.10.2013, the petitioner submitted their first reply on 29.10.2013, wherein they have pointed out that they could not finalise the accounts for the year 2012-2013 earlier and could do i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that there is no power for condoning the delay in filing the application in Form No.56D and with regard to alternative prayer, the same was also rejected stating that the assessment year is defined under Section 2(9) to mean the period of 12 months commencing on the 1st April of every year and therefore, the application cannot be treated as application for the assessment year 2013-2014. Ultimately, in paragraph 4.4 of the impugned order, the application was rejected as out of time. However, without stopping there, the respondent thereafter, proceeded to analyze the objective of the Society, which, in my view, was an exercise not called for. Having rejected the application on the ground of limitation, the question of examining the merits of....