2019 (1) TMI 957

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt? 3. On the joint request of learned Counsel for the parties, the appeal is taken on Board for final hearing. 4. This Income Tax Appeal is directed against order dated 7th September, 2018, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Division Bench, 'A', Chandigarh, (for short, 'the Tribunal') whereby the appellant's appeal against the order dated 30th September, 2016 of the Commissioner of Income Tax  (Exemptions), Chandigarh {hereinafter referred to as 'CIT(E)'}, rejecting the appellant's application, seeking approval under Section 10(23)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been dismissed being barred by limitation. 5. Though, the appellant has formulated three substantial questions of law, but in our considered view, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... barred. Hence, the Registry of the Tribunal issued a show cause notice dated 21st August, 2017, in response whereto the appellant filed an application on 12th September, 2017 seeking condonation of delay. 9. The solitary plea taken by the appellant was that it is a State instrumentality of the Government of Himachal Pradesh; that the assessee society made an application before CIT(E); on rejection of the application the documents were mailed "to the counsel in the case"; the Management of the Society was under the impression that the appeal before the ITAT had been filed but subsequently on receipt of notice of demand from the Income Tax Department during the month of July 2017, it was realized that no appeal had been filed in the case.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion of delay was moved after receiving show cause notice from the Registry of the Tribunal gives credence to the appellant's plea that it was under a bonafide impression that the appeal had been filed and it was only when the show cause notice was received that the appellant came to know that the counsel to whom documents were mailed had taken no steps to file the appeal. 12. The aforesaid fact was suggestive of the bonafide on the part of the appellant in not filing the application for condonation of delay alongwith appeal. 13. It is true, that in catena of judgments, some of which have been relied upon by the Tribunal also, it has been authoritatively ruled that Bureaucratic Methodology in making the decision is no longer acceptabl....