Allowed

Jessie Memorial Trust v. the Commr. of I.T

Madras HC5 Dec 2018TCA/621/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court held that it was in the interest of justice to condone the excessive delay in filing the appeal because the Trust had been managing its school since inception and the charitable activities were undisputed, directing the Tribunal to decide the matter on merits.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed directing the Tribunal to adjudicate the ITA No.344/Mds/2008 on merits after hearing and pass orders within one month.

Jessie Memorial Trust Vs the Commr. of I.T — Income Tax | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 05.12.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶5

Tax Case Appeal No.621 of 2009

¶6

M/s.Jessie Memorial Trust, 25, S.P.Koil Street, Puthur, Tiruchirappalli – 620 017. .... Appellant

¶7

Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax Circle IX, Fourth Floor, 611, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 006. .... Respondent

¶8

Prayer:-

¶9

Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench, Chennai, dated 13.01.2009 made in ITA No.344/Mds/2008. against the Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax-I, in C.No.6162 E(12)/2004-2005/CIT-1/TRY dated 19.10.2004 against the order of the Income Tax Officer in C.No.6162 E(12)/CIT-1/TRY/2004-2005 dated 27.07.2004.

¶10

For Respondent : Mr.Karthik Renganathan assisted by Mr.S.Rajesh Standing Counsel

¶11

The appellant before us is a charitable Trust constituted under deed of Trust dated 28.08.1991 to carry out various objects in line with the stipulations of section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'Act').

¶12

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

The present appeal challenges an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 13.01.2009 and this Court, vide order dated 24.11.2009, has admitted the appeal on the the following substantial questions of law :

¶14

'(i) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in dismissing the appeal in limini being timebarred even though there were sufficient reasons for the belated filing of the appeal as averred in the affidavit filed before them, which reasons were apparently not considered in paragraph-4 of the impugned order?

¶15

(ii) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in rejecting the prayer for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before them without granting adequate opportunity of hearing on the facts and in the circumstances of the case?

¶16

The sole issue that arises in the appeal is whether the Tribunal was right in not condoning the delay of 1160 days occasioned in filing an appeal challenging the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (in short 'CIT') dated 19.10.2004.

¶17

The CIT, in the aforesaid order, had considered an application for registration under section 12AA of the Act filed by the appellant, granting registration with effect from 01.04.2004 i.e., assessment year 2005-06 onwards. The ground for challenge before the Tribunal was that registration ought to have been granted from the inception of the Trust, i.e., with effect from 28.08.1991 and not from 01.04.2004 only.

¶18

According to the appellant, the main activity of the Trust is to manage a school under the name and style of Jessy Matriculation Higher Secondary School. The entire administration of the school was being carried out by the Trustee and his wife. Since the Trustee, aged over 60 years had not been keeping good health, the entire responsibility of running the school has fallen upon his wife, who had, in view of various administrative and financial challenges, lost sight of filing the appeal in time.

¶19

The Tribunal has declined condonation for the reason that no evidence had been filed in support of the aforesaid explanation.

¶20

We find that the application for registration under section 12A before the CIT was itself filed belatedly. The CIT has declined condonation of the delay by way of a cryptic order granting registration only with effect from 01.04.2004.

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶22

However, evidently the charitable activities carried on by the assessee have not been disputed as the CIT has thought it fit to grant registration.

¶23

The Trust has been filing its return regularly and there is no dispute on the position that the Trust has been managing and running the school since 1991 till date. In our view, the interests of justice require that the delay is condoned and the matter remanded to the Tribunal for disposal on merits.

¶24

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue is also fair enough not to raise any serious objection to oppose the present appeal.

¶25

In the light of the above discussion, the Tax Case
(Appeal) is allowed directing the Tribunal to adjudicate upon
I.T.A.No.344/Mds/2008 on merits after affording an opportunity
of hearing to the parties, and pass orders within a period of
one (1) month from the date of receipt of a copy of the present
order. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS V)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
sl
To
1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Madras 'C' Bench, Chennai
2. The Commissioner of Income Tax-I,
Tiruchirapalli.
3. The Income Tax Office (Head Quarters)
O/o. Commissioner of Income Tax-I,
Tiruchirapalli
4. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Company Circle-II, Trichy.
+1cc to Mr.Karthik Renganathan, Advocate, S.R.No.84149
+1cc to Mr.S.Sridhar, Advocate, S.R.No.84122

¶26

TCA No.621 of 2009 PPA(CO) CS/19/02/2019

¶27

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Jessie Memorial Trust v. the Commr. of I.T

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jessie Memorial Trust v. the Commr. of I.T

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S M.P.Narayanan

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S M.P.Narayanan

The Commissioner of I.T Vs Bannari Amman Spinning Mills

P.Yuvaraaj, Vs The District Collector

The Commissioner of Vs M/S.Pharma & Vijay Investment

Commissioner of I.T Vs Maars Software International