TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (9) TMI 195
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tioner, in the present case, is a registered trust which runs an educational institution. The trust is constituted, inter alia, with the object to organize and promote education. It is engaged in imparting technical education and training. The institution has been approved by the All India Council for Technical Education for conducting the degree course in Engineering and Technology. The petitioner-trust has been granted registration under section 12A of the Income-tax Act on January 15, 2003, bearing Registration No. 44/1998-99. It filed an application for exemption under section 10(23C)(vi) for the financial year 2006-07 in Form 56D along with the requisite documents on May 31, 2007. This application was accompanied by another application for condonation of delay in presenting the application under section 10(23C) (vi). The Chief Commissioner of Income-tax-O. P. No. 1 by order dated May 30, 2008, refused to entertain and admit the application made under section 10(23C)(vi) on the ground that it was filed beyond the time prescribed under the statute and the statute does not vest any power with him to condone the delay. Hence, the present writ petition. 4. Mr. Jagabandhu Sahoo, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s not filed the application within the said stipulated time, the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax is justified in not admitting the petitioner's application for grant of exemption. He further submitted that no power is vested with the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax to condone the delay in presenting the application under section 10(23C)(vi) for exemption. It is the Central Board of Direct Taxes ("the CBDT") which is empowered under section 119(2) (b) to direct an income-tax authority to admit an application or claim for any exemption, deduction, refund or any other relief under the Income-tax Act after expiry of the period specified therein the Income-tax Act. 7. In view of the rival contentions of the respective parties, the question that falls for consideration by this court is: (i) Whether the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax is justified in not entertaining the petitioner's application made under section 10(23C)(vi) for grant of exemption on the ground that the same was not filed within the period of limitation prescribed under the Income-tax Act and no power is vested with him to condone the delay? 8. At this juncture, it is relevant to take note of the relevant pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s required by the statute, application for grant of exemption for the financial year 2006-07 should be made to the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax before the end of the said financial year, i.e., by March 31, 2007. In the present case, the application was made on May 31, 2007, which is beyond the time provided in the statute. The Income-tax Act nowhere provides any provisions for condonation of delay in presenting application under section 10(23C)(vi) for grant of exemption. Thus, it is to be examined whether in the absence of such a provision any application made under section 10(23C)(vi) beyond the statutory period of limitation can be entertained by the appropriate authority by condoning the delay in presenting such application. 10. The Income-tax Act is a self-contained Act. It contain provisions for filling of first appeal under section 246A and second appeal under section 253 and appeal to High Court under section 260A against the order of assessment and first appeal order and second appeal order respectively. There is also provision for filing revision by an assessee before the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 264 against any order passed by an income-tax authori....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessment year from which such exemption is sought. Such application cannot be made for any earlier period. The proposed amendment shall apply only in respect of applications which are made on or after June 1, 2006. This amendment will take effect from 1st June, 2006." 11. Thus, the Finance Bill, 2006, has been brought, inter alia, to provide period of limitation for entertaining application under section 10(23C)(vi) for exemption made on or after June 1, 2006, and accordingly the new proviso 14 was inserted to section 10(23C)(vi). While providing period of limitation for presenting application for grant of exemption under section 10(23C)(vi) before the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, the Legislature has not made any provision for condonation of delay in presentation of such application as has been provided for filing of first appeal, second appeal, appeal to the High Court and revision. The language used in proviso 14 to section 10(23C)(vi), the Notes on Clauses to the Finance Bill, 2006, and that the Income-tax Act contain provisions for condonation of delay in presenting first appeal, second appeal, appeal to the High Court and revision make it amply clear that the....
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. Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel submitted that a direction may be given to the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax to consider the application of the petitioner for condonation of delay. In support of such submission he relied on the order dated May 15, 2008, passed by this court in W. P. (C) No. 4514 of 2008 in Padmashree Krutarth Acharya Institute of Engineering and Technology v. Chief CIT [2009] 309 1TR 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 authority exercising such quasi-judicial function should also have the incidental power of condoning delay if there is justifiable ground for such condonation. There is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isdiction by any quasi-judicial authority, the question of ancillary and incidental power arises. Condonation of delay may itself be a question of jurisdiction depending upon the statute applicable. Once limitation expires, the court/authority may lose the jurisdiction to adjudicate any issue. In that event, exercise of any ancillary and incidental power does not arise. Thus, M. K. Mohammed Kunhi's case [1969] 71 ITR 815 (SC) is of no help to the assessee. 24. In the present case, the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax does not acquire any jurisdiction in respect of the application filed under section 10(23C)(vi) beyond the statutory period of limitation, in that situation, the decisions, as reported in Kandula Prabhakar Rao v. Tumulu Lakshmanamurthy [1987] 64 CLT 713, CST v. Member of Sales Tax Tribunal, ILR 1971 Cutt, 1325, Harendra Prasad Sahu v. Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal [1996] 103 STC 333 (Orissa) and Lipok AO's case [205] 100 CLT 111 (SC) are of no help to the petitioner. 25. The decisions of the hon'ble Supreme Court in Kailash's case, AIR 2005 SC 2441 and R. N. Jadi and Brothers, AIR 2007 SC 2571, rendered with reference to Order 8, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure....