1. This appeal is directed against order dated 12-11-2001 passed by Director of Income-tax (Exemptions), Kolkata ['DI(E)'] under section 12AA of Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). assessee, society registered under West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961 on 4-10-1999, in its application dated 5-11-2001 had requested for registration under section 12AA from its inception but DI(E) granted such registration with effect from 1-4-2001. 2. There is delay of 4 years 4 months and 12 days in preferring this appeal. duly sworn affidavit of assessee's Director has been filed explaining reasons for delay. material contents of said affidavit may be summarised thus:- (a)The assessee was registered as society with mission to improve quality of life of under privileged women and children living in difficult circumstances, particularly families and children living on pavements of Kolkata. (b)Most of funds for assessee's activities are received from Hope Foundation, Ireland. assessee was registered on 24-2-2003 under Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976. Prior to such registration, in accordance with provisions of section 6(1A) of said Act, assessee applied for prior permission of Central Government for receiving contributions from Hope Foundation, Ireland for its objects. Central Government granted such permission. assessee also submitted to Central Government full details about utilization of foreign contribution received by it. (c)In year 1999 itself, assessee set up Home in Kolkata for street and abandoned children. (d)Due to unprecedented floods in city of Kolkata in year 1999, there was serious outbreak of Malaria. In November, 1999, assessee set up clinic for treatment of malaria patients and more serious cases were referred to Hospitals and Nursing Homes. said clinic continued till June, 2000. (e)Mrs. Sheila Banerjee was Secretary of assessee. She went abroad in November, 2000. After her departure, assessee did not have any Secretary. (f)After earthquake in Bhuj, Gujarat, office bearers and members of assessee, with permission of Central Government, got fully involved in earthquake relief work from 28-1-2001. Such relief work continued till 31-3- 2002. (g)All office bearers and members of assessee were fully involved i n charitable work since inception of assessee. They bona fide proceeded on basis that there was no income-tax implication since assessee merely received funds and spent them for charitable purposes. They had no idea about need to obtain registration under section 12AA. (h)In or about June, 2001, then Vice President of assessee Sri Anil Kumar Bhunia was requested to perform functions of Secretary. (i) In or about October, 2001, Shri Anil Kumar Bhunia came to learn from similar organisations engaged in charitable work that it was necessary to obtain registration under section 12AA of Act and comply with formalities under Act by way of filing returns etc. Accordingly, he prepared application for obtaining registration and on 5-11-2001 submitted it in office of DI(E) with request for condo nation of delay and grant of registration from assessee's inception. (j) By order dated 12-11-2001 DI(E) granted registration with effect from 1-4-2001. However, implication of such registration instead of from inception could not be immediately ascertained because office bearers and members of assessee were heavily involved in earthquake relief work at Bhuj. (k) matter could be addressed only after office bearers and members of assessee returned from Bhuj. assessee consulted Sri K.B. Roy, Advocate who advised making of application to DI(E) for correction of date of registration. On 26-12-2002 Sri K.B. Roy, Advocate also made such application on behalf of assessee. assessee expected favourable disposal of said application and waited for same. (l) When Assessing Officer issued notices under section 148 of Act for assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02 and in course of such proceedings took stand that exemption under section 11 was not available for said two years in absence of registration under section 12AA, assessee on 1-2-2006 made another application to DI(E) referring to its previous application dated 26-12-2002 and prayed for rectification of order dated 12-11-2001 and grant of registration with effect from 4-10-1999. No orders were received either on application dated 26-12-2002 or application dated 1-2-2006. (m) After receipt of assessment orders for assessment years 2000- 0 1 and 2001-02 denying exemption under section 11 for lack of registration under section 12AA, assessee sought advice from Sri K.V. Singh, Advocate who pointed out to assessee for first time that provisions of section 253(1)(c) of Act were amended with effect from 1-6-1999 to provide for appeal before Tribunal against order passed under section 12AA. Sri K.V. Singh, Advocate advised that filing of rectification application and pursuing same was not appropriate remedy and proper course was to file appeal before Tribunal along with application for condo nation of delay. (n) office bearers and members of assessee are not conversant with provisions of Act and were not aware about appeal provision introduced in Act with effect from 1-6-1999. Even Shri K.B. Roy, Advocate, whom assessee had consulted in year 2002, was not aware of appeal provision since he did not mention about it and advised assessee to apply for rectification before DI(E). assessee bona fide accepted advice of Sri K.B. Roy and instructed him to file application before DI(E) which he did and waited for its disposal. assessee again pursued DI(E) when issue of registration arose in course of proceedings under section 147. assessee being unaware of appeal procedure could not avail of it earlier. Upon coming to know of same in first week of May, 2006 from Sri K.V. Singh, Advocate assessee took expeditious steps for filing appeal along with application for condonation of appeal and same were filed on 23-5-2006. 3. On behalf of assessee, reliance was placed on aforesaid factual explanation. It was submitted that assessee had bona fide acted according to advice received by it by filing rectification application and pursuing it. assessee filed appeal before Tribunal within shortest possible time after coming to know that appeal lay before Tribunal. Reliance was placed on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123. Reliance was also placed on Third Member decision in People Education & Economic Development Society v. ITO [2006] 100 ITD 87 (Chennai). 4. On behalf of revenue, prayer for condonation of delay was opposed. 5. There is no dispute about fact that assessee is doing good charitable work. assessee has been granted exemption under section 11 from assessment year 2002-03 and onwards. Most of funds are received from Ireland and Government of India has permitted assessee to receive foreign contributions because of its genuine work. office bearers and members of assessee are fully occupied in its charitable activities. order under appeal was received at time when they were all involved in earthquake relief work at Bhuj. After that project was over, lawyer was consulted and according to his advice rectification application was made to DI(E). rectification application is on lawyer's letter head and signed by him on behalf of assessee. lawyer did not advise assessee to prefer appeal before Tribunal. assessee having filed rectification application as per advice received, pursued same. It is assessee's case that it was not aware about amendment in law providing for appeal before Tribunal against order under section 12AA nor did lawyer whom it had consulted in year 2002 apprise it of appellate procedure resulting in its inability to avail same at that time. 6. In State of West Bengal v. Administrator, Howrah Municipality [1972] 1 SCC 366 it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that if party had acted in particular manner on wrong advice given by his legal advisor, he cannot be held guilty of negligence so as to disentitle party to plead sufficient cause. In N. Balakrishnan's case (supra). It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that rules of limitation were not meant to destroy rights of parties. They were meant to see that parties did not resort to dilatory tactics but sought their remedy promptly. Condonation of delay was matter of discretion of Court. Length of delay was no matter, acceptability of explanation was only criterion. In every case of delay, there would be some lapse on part of litigant concerned. That alone was not enough to turn down his plea and shut door against him. If explanation did not smack of mala fides or it was not put forth as part of dilatory strategy, Court must show utmost consideration to suitor. But when there is reasonable ground to think that delay was occasioned by party deliberately to gain time, then Court should lean against acceptance of explanation. There was no presumption that delay in approaching Court was always deliberate. words 'sufficient cause' should receive liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. 7. Examining facts of instant case in light of aforesaid principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, it has to be held that assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring appeal and delay has to be condoned. assessee cannot be faulted for having bona fide acted on advice received by it for filing rectification application before DI(E) and pursuing it. It is not implausible that amendment providing for appeal which was fairly recent at time when decision was rendered by DI(E) may not have come to notice of assessee or even its lawyer as claimed by it. Even if it is taken that lawyer knew of appeal provision and yet did not advise assessee to avail it, assessee cannot be faulted. assessee had nothing to gain from delaying filing of appeal. assessee's explanation is bona fide and facts do not show that assessee deliberately delayed filing of appeal. In People Education & Economic Development Society's case (supra), on almost similar facts, Tribunal condoned delay. For these reasons, delay in this case has also to be condoned. 8. short ground involved in appeal is whether DI(E) was justified in not granting registration with effect from 4-10-1999. According to section 12A(a), application for registration should have been made before expiry of one year from 4-10-1999 when assessee was registered as society. proviso takes in situation where application for registration is made after expiry of one year. Commissioner is empowered to condone delay in making of application if he is so satisfied and grant registration from date of establishment of institution. If he is not so satisfied, registration is to be granted from first day of financial year in which application is made. In instant case, application was made on 5-11-2001 and registration has been granted from 1-4-2001. Therefore, DI(E) did not consider it fit case for condoing delay, though his reasons for not accepting assessee's explanation are not stated in his order dated 12-11- 2001. 9. On behalf of assessee it was submitted that reasons which prevented assessee from making application within period of one year have also been given in affidavit to which reference has been made earlier. It was submitted that there was no dispute about assessee's entitlement to registration under section 12AA and that it had fulfilled all conditions in that behalf. Registration has in fact been granted with effect from 1- 4-2001 and assessee is only claiming that it should be granted from 4-10- 1999 since there were sufficient reasons which prevented it from making application within period of one year. Reliance was placed on unreported decision of Tribunal in St. Stephens School v. DIT (Exemptions) [IT Appeal No. 2137 (Kol.) of 2003, decided on 7-4-2004]. 10. On behalf of revenue, learned Departmental Representative supported order of DI(E). 11. In N. Balakrishnan's case (supra) it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that in case where first court refused to condone delay, Superior Court would be free to consider cause shown for delay afresh and it is open to such Superior Court to come to its own finding untrammelled by conclusion of lower court. 12. It is, therefore, to be seen as to whether there were sufficient reasons which prevented assessee from making application for registration before expiry of one year. acceptability of assessee's explanation has to be tested on same principles which have been adverted to earlier. It is assessee's case that its office bearers and members were completely involved in charitable work since its inception and bona fide proceeded on basis that there was no income-tax implication because assessee merely received funds and spent them for charitable purposes. For about seven months during 2000-01 assessee did not have Secretary. assessee came to know about need for registration only in October 2001 when person entrusted to perform functions of Secretary learnt of it from other organisations in field and immediately thereafter it applied for registration with prayer for condonation of delay. There is no reason to disbelieve said explanation. commitment and involvement of assessee's office bearers and members in charitable work since inception cannot be disputed. assessee did not even have Secretary during large part of financial year 2000-01. It is not implausible that all persons who were heavily involved in charitable work may not have addressed themselves to taxation aspects and bona fide proceeded on commonsense point of view that there was no tax obligation since no income was being earned and assessee was only spending contributions received for charitable purposes. There is nothing to suggest any deliberate or intentional delay in filing application for registration. assessee had nothing to gain by delaying application. assessee applied for registration as soon as it became aware of its obligation. This is fit case where delay should have been condoned and registration should have been granted from 4-10-1999 particularly since there is no dispute that assessee had fulfilled all conditions for grant of registration and is indisputably public charitable institution. In St. Stephens School's case (supra) Tribunal held that benefit provided in statute for exemption of certain income should not be denied to assessee on mere technicalities provided other conditions for grant thereof are satisfied and conduct of assessee is bona fide one. In facts of instant case it has to be held that delay in filing application for registration was for sufficient reasons and is therefore to be condoned. assessee has to be granted registration under section 12AA with effect from 4-10-1999 and DI(E) is directed accordingly. 13. Since appeal itself has been allowed, stay petition has become infructuous and no order needs to be passed thereon. *** EDITH WILKINS HOPE FOUNDATION v. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)