M/s Grameena Chaitanya Veddika, Veeraghattam v. The Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Visakhapatnam

ITA 500/VIZ/2009 | misc
Pronouncement Date: 20-12-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 50025314 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AAATG9402A
Bench Visakhapatnam
Appeal Number ITA 500/VIZ/2009
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
Appellant M/s Grameena Chaitanya Veddika, Veeraghattam
Respondent The Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Visakhapatnam
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 20-12-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 20-12-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 09-12-2010
Next Hearing Date 09-12-2010
Assessment Year misc
Appeal Filed On 05-11-2009
Judgment Text
ITA NOS.499&500/VIZ/2009 GRAMEENA CHAITANYA VEDIKA VEERAGHATTAM IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BR BASKARAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO S . 499 & 500 /VIZAG/ 20 09 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : N.A. M/S. GRAMEEN A CHAITANYA VEDDIKA VEERAGHATTAM CIT - 2 VISAKHAPATNAM (APPELLANT) VS. (RESPONDENT) PAN NO.AAATG 9402A APPELLANT BY: SHRI G.V.N. HARI CA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI J. SIRI KUMAR DR ORDER PER SHRI S.K. YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER : - THESE APPEALS ARE PREFER RED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT REJECTING THE REGISTRATION U/S 12A AND EXEMPTION U/S 80G OF THE I.T. ACT. IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE OFFICE THAT BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE TIME BARRED BY 218 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE HAS MOVED AN APPLICATION FO R CONDONATION OF DELAY STATING THEREIN THAT ASSESSEE SOCIETY WAS FORMED WITH C HARITABLE OBJECT INCLUDING ENCOURAGEMENT OF THRIFT AND SELF - HELP AMONG RURAL POOR. IT FILED AN APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12AA BEFORE THE CIT. THE SAID APPLICATION WAS RE JECTED VIDE ORDER DATED 28.1.2009. THERE AFTER HE WAS ADVISED TO FILE ANOTHER APPLICATION AND ACCORDINGLY FILED ANOTHER APPLICATION ON 28.5.2009 BEFORE THE CIT WHICH WAS ALSO REJECTED VIDE ORDER DATED 30.7.2009 ON THE GROUND THAT FIRST APPLICATION HAD A LREADY BEEN REJECTED AND HENCE SECOND APPLICATION CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AGAIN. THERE AFTER THE ASSESSEE CONTACTED THE SENIOR CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT AND CAME TO KNOW THAT PROPER COURSE OF ACTION WOULD BE TO PREFER AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THERE AFTE R THESE APPEALS WERE FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON 5.11.2009. THEREFORE THE DELAY OF 218 DAYS IN FILING OF THE APPEAL WAS ON ACCOUNT OF BONAFIDE REASONS AND THE ASSESSEE ACCORDINGLY REQUESTED FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY . ITA NOS.499&500/VIZ/2009 GRAMEENA CHAITANYA VEDIKA VEERAGHATTAM 2 2. THE LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND HA S SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT A CASE THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT ASSISTED BY THE TAX CONSULTANTS. THEY HAVE MOVED AN APPLICATION BEFORE THE CIT FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12A AND EXEMPTION U/S 80G OF THE I.T. ACT . O NCE IT HAS BEEN REJECTED BY THE CIT VIDE ITS ORDER DATE D 28.1.2009 THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE CHALLENGED THAT ORDER BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY FILING THE APPEAL BUT THEY DID NOT DO SO AND THEY MOVED A SECOND APPLICATION ONLY ON 18.5.2009 I.E. AFTER A PERIOD OF 4 MONTHS AND THE SECOND APPLICATION WAS ALSO REJECTED V IDE ORDER DATED 30.7.2009 . E VEN THEN THE SECOND REJECTION OF CIT WAS NOT CHALLENGED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY FILING AN APPEAL IN TIME. THE LD. D.R. FURTHER CONTENDED THAT IT HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY HELD BY THE APEX COURT IN NUMBER OF CASES THAT THE DELAY HAS T O BE EXPLAINED PROPERLY BY THE ASSESSEE. IF IT IS PROVED THAT DELAY WAS CAUSED FOR BONAFIDE REASONS IT CAN ONLY BE CONDONED. IN THE INSTANT CASE NO BONAFIDE REASONS ARE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY THE APPEAL WAS NOT FILED IN TIME. THEREFORE IT SHOULD NOT BE CONDONED. 3. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FROM A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE RECORD WE FIND THAT THE FIRST APPLICATION WAS REJECTED VIDE ORDER DATED 28.1.2009. THE ASSESSEE IS A CHARITABLE SOCIETY AND IT MUST BE ASSISTED BY SOME TAX CONSULTANTS AND NO PROPER JUSTIFICATION IS PLACED BEFORE US AS TO WHY THIS ORDER WAS NOT CHALLENGED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH IT. EVEN IF WE ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT HAD FILED A SECOND APPLICATION ON W RONG ADVICE ON 18.5.2009 WHICH WAS ALSO REJECTED ON 30.7.2009 WE FIND NO VALID REASONS AS TO WHY THE ORDER OF THE CIT IS NOT CHALLENGED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL DESPITE OF SECOND REJECTION. HE HAS NOT MADE A CASE THAT DELAY WAS CAUSED ON THE PART OF THE PRO FESSIONALS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HA S FAILED TO EXPLAIN TH E DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL WE FIND NO VALID JUSTIFICATION TO CONDONE THE DELAY. WE THEREFORE REJECT THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND ACCORDINGLY THESE APPEALS OF TH E ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED BEING BARRED BY LIMITATION. SINCE WE ITA NOS.499&500/VIZ/2009 GRAMEENA CHAITANYA VEDIKA VEERAGHATTAM 3 HAVE DISMISSED THE SE APPEALS BEING BARRED BY LIMITATION WE RESTRAIN OURSELVES FROM ADJUDICATING THESE APPEALS ON MERIT. 4. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNC ED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 - 12 - 20 10 SD/ - SD/ - (BR BASKARAN) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER VG/SPS VISAKHAPATNAM DATED 20 - 12 - 20 10 COPY TO 1 M/S. GRAMEENA CHAITANYA VEDDIKA VEERAGHATTAM SRIKAKULAM DIST. PIN - 532460. 2 CIT - 2 VISAKHAPATNAM 3 THE CIT (A) VISAKHAPATNAM 4 THE DR ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM. 5 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM