TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 566
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee, but however on earlier occasions, adjournment application's were moved which stood allowed by Division Bench. The Division Bench decided to adjudicate this appeal filed by the assessee after hearing ld. CIT-DR and pursuing material on record. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by assessee in memo of appeal filed with Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Varanasi (hereinafter called "the tribunal"), reads as under: "1. That the order under appeal is contrary to law and facts of the case. 2. That the ld. CIT- Exemption is not justified and correct in rejecting the application filed by the appellant on 27.10.18 for grant of exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi), on ground of alleged delay in filing application. 3. That on whole facts, circumstance of the case and materials on record, the ground taken by the ld. CIT- Exemption for rejection of application filed by the appellant on 27.10.18 for grant of exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) is not correct and justified. 4. That the rejection of application filed by the appellant on 27.10.18 for grant of exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) for F.Y. 17-18 and subsequent year/s, by the ld. CIT- Exemption is not justified and correct when there has been sufficien....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....208 for financial year 2017-18(assessment year 2018-19) , but in any case this is a disputed fact which will be required to be verified by ld. CIT(E) in set aside remand proceedings as we will see later in this order that we are setting aside and restoring the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(E) . Henceforth, we will proceed on the assumption that the application in Form No. 56D was filed by assessee on 27.10.2018 seeking registration u/s 10(23C)(vi) for financial year 2017-18(assessment year 2018-19) . Proceeding further , the Ld. CIT(Exemption) called for a report of the AO along with comments of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow which were duly submitted. The Ld. CIT(Exemption) , Lucknow issued notice to the assessee calling for the information from assessee, which was submitted. It was observed by Learned CIT(Exemption) that the assessee has filed Form No. 56D belatedly on 27th October, 2018 for financial year 2018-19(sic. financial year 2017-18) which should have been filed on or before 30th September, 2018 , and there are no power vested with Learned CIT (Exemption) to condone the delay. Hence the application filed by the assessee in Form No. 56D on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under; "In as much as the Fourteenth proviso does not empower the CCIT to condone the delay in filing the application, the order passed by him, rejecting the petitioners application for the assessment year 2008-09 on the ground that was belated, cannot be faulted." (iv) In a similar case of Sant Baba Sunder Singh Canadian Charitable Trust, Barnala Vs CBDT (2010) 195 taxmann 88 (Punj. & Har), the issue of rejection of claim for grant of exemption for application filed after the prescribed period had been considered by Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The Court observed as under: "It is conceded position that the assessee-petitioner has filed the application on 23.09.2008 seeking exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) in respect of assessment year 2008-09, which could have been filed during the financial year 2007-08, i.e. on or before 31.03.2008. It is thus, evident that the application by the assessee-petitioner has been filed after the prescribed period and the CCIT has rightly rejected the same being not maintainable." (v) Reliance is also placed on recent judgment of High Court of Allahabad in the case of ID Education Society Vs. PCCIT [2015] 56 taxmann.com 68 (Allahaba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2018 which ought to have been filed on 30th September, 2018 for seeking registration u/s 10(23C)(vi) for financial year 2017-18 .The Learned CIT DR submitted that power to condone delay vests with CBDT. Thus, prayers were made to dismiss this appeal or else the same can be restored to the file of ld. CIT(E) to consider the same on merit for subsequent assessment years. 5. We have considered contentions of ld. CIT DR and perused the material on record. We have observed that the assessee filed an application in form No. 56D on 27.10.2018 for grant of registration u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the 1961 Act for the financial year 2017-18 . The application as per law prevailing at the relevant time is to be filed on or before 30.09.2018. Thus, the application filed by assessee in Form No. 56D on 27.10.2018 seeking registration u/s 10(23C)(vi) for financial year 2017-18 is clearly an belated application . There is no provision in the 1961 Act empowering ld. CIT(E) to condone the delay. The power to condone the delay vests with CBDT by virtue of provisions of Section 119(2)(b) of the 1961 Act. Reference is drawn to the judgment and order of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sanjay Ghodawat ....