TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 1387
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act) on 11.01.2010. Thereafter, the Revenue had sent a letter on 16.03.2010 to the assessee seeking some additional particulars which the assessee had responded. Finally, an order was passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (in short CIT) by order dated 16.08.2010 whereby the application of the assessee seeking for registration was rejected. Though such order was passed by the CIT on 16.08.2010, no further action had been taken by the assessee. 5. After some years, during December 2015, the assessee had received recovery notice from the Revenue dated 14.12.2015 for the assessment year 2013-14. Only in that context, the assessee had discussion with professional person for getting professional advise where the issue that the rejection order passed by the CIT refusing to register the assessee's entity under section 12AA of the Act had been brought to the notice to the professional and on whose advise the assessee came to know that as against the order of rejection made by the CIT under section 12AA of the Act, an appeal to the Tribunal has been provided for by way of newly inserted section 253(1)(c) of the Act with effect from 01.06.1999. 6. Only on coming to know these fac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Mr.A.Johnson FCA, for further action. According to the assessee, since it is a complicated technical issue from the point of view of the assessee, as how to proceed further on receipt of the rejection order from the CIT, it had to necessarily depend for the advise and further action, only his Chartered Accountant. However, the said Chartered Accountant, as claimed by the assessee, had miserably failed to give proper advise for preferring any appeal against the order of the CIT. 13. Only at that time of discussion with other professional, pursuant to the recovery notice issued by the Revenue in the month of December 2015, this subject of rejection order passed by the CIT came up for discussion and ultimately, proper advise was received by the assessee to prefer an appeal. Therefore, only because of this genuine reason, the assessee could not make an appeal in time therefore, even though the delay was huge and inordinate one, the reason attributable to such delay is absolutely genuine and that is the reason why the actual reason for delayed approach on the part of the assessee to the Tribunal was alone given in the appeal. 14. However, the learned standing counsel appearing for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, all institutions, whether run by a State Government or by voluntary or non-governmental organisations, which are meant, either wholly or partially, for housing children in need of care and protection or children in conflict with law, shall, be registered under this Act in such manner as may be prescribed, within a period of six months from the date of commencement of this Act, regardless of whether they are receiving grants from the Central Government or, as the case may be, the State Government or not: Provided that the institutions having valid registration under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (56 of 2000) on the date of commencement of this Act shall be deemed to have been registered under this Act." 19. In consonance with said provisions of the Juvenile Act, the appellant's children home, after having been registered by the authority concerned, was certified by proceedings dated 14.12.2016 in proceedings No.15566/D1/2016 of the Directorate of Social Defence, Government of Tamil Nadu. The relevant content of the said certification is reproduced ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....39;ble Apex court, in the matter of Collector, land acquisition -vs- M.S.T.Katiji and others reported in I.T.R.Vol.167(1987) Page 471. In the said Judgment, their Lordships have given certain principles based on which, the issue with regard to the delay can be approached and the said portion of the order of the Judgment cited supra is reproduced hereunder: "And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that: 1.Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2.Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. Every day's delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational, common sense and pragmatic manner. 4.When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ile ignorance of law is no excuse, (a maxim of different scope and application), there is not and never has been a presumption that everyone knows the law. (See observations made in this behalf at page 629) : ...... 6. The claim of the appellant to exemption could be sustained only on the doctrine of promissory estoppel and this doctrine could not be said to be so well defined in its scope and ambit and so free from uncertainty in its application that we should be compelled to hold that the appellant must have had knowledge of its right to exemption on the basis of promissory estoppel at the time when it addressed the letter dated 25th June, 1970. In fact, in the petition as originally filed, the right to claim total exemption from sales tax was not based on the plea of promissory estoppel which was introduced only by way of amendment. Moreover, it must be remembered that there is no presumption that every person knows the law. It is often said that every one is presumed to know the law, but that is not a correct statement: there is no such maxim known to the law. Over a hundred and thirty years ago, Maule, J., pointed out in Martindala v. Faulkner, (1846) 2 CB 706 "....