TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 1110
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... registered with the Registrar of Societies, Raipur Division on 23-8-2004, submitted application in Form No. 10A for provisional registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the IT Act') on 2-12-2022 and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Bhopal on 9-12-2022, issued order in favour of the appellant in Form No. 10AC granting provisional registration under Section 12A of the IT Act. After getting provisional registration, on 25-9-2023, the appellant Society submitted application in Form No. 10AB for permanent registration under Section 12A of the IT Act. After due opportunity of hearing having been afforded to the parties including the appellant Society, on 19-2-2024, finally, the CIT(E) rejected the application for registration under Section 12A of the IT Act which was communicated to the appellant on 2-3-2024. The order dated 2-3-2024 was appealable before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 253 of the IT Act within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order, but it is the case of the appellant that on the wrong advise of his counsel, he has reapplied for registration under Section 12A of the IT Act, however, on account of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as uncontroverted by the Revenue. In that view of the matter, the present appeal deserves to be allowed and after condoning the delay, the ITAT be directed to decide the appeal on merits. 5. Mr. Ajay Kumrani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Amit Chaudhari, Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department / Revenue, would submit that since the order rejecting the application for permanent registration was appealable under Section 253 (1) of the IT Act, remedy was to file appeal under the said provision which has not been availed by the appellant Society right in time, therefore, the cause shown by the appellant Society for not preferring appeal within the stipulated period cannot be said to be the sufficient cause and as such, the ITAT has rightly rejected the application for condonation of delay and consequently, the appeal has also been rightly dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 7. Undisputedly, the appellant's application under Section 12A of the IT Act for permanent registration was rejected after due enquiry by order da....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under section 154 amending any such order; or (ii) a Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or a Principal Director General or Director General or a Principal Director or Director under section 263 or under section 272A or an order passed by him under section 154 amending any such order; or" 9. Similarly, sub-sections (3) and (5) of Section 253 of the IT Act state as under: - "(3) Every appeal under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be filed within sixty days of the date on which the order sought to be appealed against is communicated to the assessee or to the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be: Provided that in respect of any appeal under clause (b) of sub-section (1), this sub-section shall have effect as if for the words "sixty days", the words "thirty days" had been substituted. (5) The Appellate Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit the filing of a memorandum of cross-objections after the expiry of the relevant period referred to in sub-section (3) or sub-section (4), if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period." 10. A careful perusal of sub-se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed in favour of the party or not. 16. Likewise, in the matter of Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari AIR 1969 SC 575, the Supreme Court has held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act gives the courts a discretion which in respect of jurisdiction is to be exercised in the way in which judicial power and discretion ought to be exercised upon principles which are well understood; the words 'sufficient cause' receiving a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence nor inaction nor want of bona fides is imputable to the appellant. 17. In Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag (supra)1, the Supreme Court has held that the legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on 'merits'. In paragraph 3 of the report it has been held as under: - "3. The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on 'merits'. The expression "suffi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f law laid down in Shakuntala Devi Jain (supra) and State of W.B. v. Administrator, Howrah Municipality (1972) 1 SCC 366, their Lordships observed as under: - "9. It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to a want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases, delay of a very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. Once the court accepts the explanation as sufficient, it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior court should not disturb such finding, much less in revisional jurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was on wholly untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. But it is a different matter when the first court refuses to condone the delay. In such cases, the superior court would be free to consider the cause shown for the delay afresh and it is open to such superior court....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y, the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. But when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time, then the court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. While condoning the delay, the Court should not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a loser and he too would have incurred quite large litigation expenses. It would be a salutary guideline that when courts condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant, the court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss." 19. Thereafter, in the matter of State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani and others (1996) 3 SCC 132, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that the court should decide the matters on merits unless the case is hopelessly without merit. It has been observed as under: - "11. ... The expression "sufficient cause" should, therefore, be considered with pragmatism in justice-oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every day's delay. The factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of the functioning of the governmental conditi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach. 21.10. (x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation. 21.11. (xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation. 21.12. (xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinized and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception. 21.13. (xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude. 22. To the aforesaid principles we may add some more guidelines taking note of the present day scenario....