Kerala Cricket Association v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax
[Citation -2014-LL-1031]

Citation 2014-LL-1031
Appellant Name Kerala Cricket Association
Respondent Name Additional Commissioner of Income-tax
Court HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 31/10/2014
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags condonation of delay • second application
Bot Summary: According to the appellant, they made an application seeking registration under section 12A of the Act for the period commencing from the assessment year 1992-93. According to the appellant, this application was untraceable and was not acted upon by the Commissioner and that in such circumstances the appellant made another application on March 10, 2006. As a result, by his order dated October 17, 2006, the application was finally rejected by the Commissioner. Subsequently, the appellant filed another application on November 8, 2006, with a prayer to grant registration under section 12A of the Act with retrospective effect. Now coming to I. T. A. No. 588 of 2009, as we have already stated, the application in question was made for registration on November 8, 2006. The facts noted above show that the rejection of the defective application dated March 10, 2006 for registration with retrospective effect had attained finality. Thereafter, the first valid application made is the one dated November 8, 2006, which did not make out any valid circumstance for a retrospective registration under section 12A of the Act.


JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by Antony Dominic J.-All these appeals are filed by Kerala Cricket Association. subject matter of I. T. A. Nos. 588 of 2009 and 1529 of 2009 is claim of association for registration under section 12A of Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short), whereas other appeals arise out of assessment orders passed for assessment years 2001-02 to 2005-06. We shall first deal with I. T. A. Nos. 588 of 2009 and 1529 of 2009. According to appellant, they made application seeking registration under section 12A of Act for period commencing from assessment year 1992-93. It is stated that said application was made to Commissioner on December 26, 1997. According to appellant, this application was untraceable and, therefore, was not acted upon by Commissioner and that in such circumstances appellant made another application on March 10, 2006. Admittedly, this application was defective one. Despite notices issued, defects were not cured. As result, by his order dated October 17, 2006, application was finally rejected by Commissioner. Aggrieved by order dated October 17, 2006, appellant filed appeal before Tribunal with application to condone delay of 445 days. Tribunal declined to condone delay and, accordingly, appeal was also dismissed. It is aggrieved by this order of Tribunal, which was passed on December 19, 2008, I. T. A. No. 1529 of 2008 is filed. Subsequently, appellant filed another application on November 8, 2006, with prayer to grant registration under section 12A of Act with retrospective effect. On that application, registration was granted with effect from April 1, 2006. Challenging this order and complaining that registration should have been granted with retrospective effect as prayed for, Appeal No. 494/Coch/08 was filed before Tribunal. Tribunal dismissed this appeal also by its order dated December 19, 2008. It is this order which is challenged in I. T. A. No. 588 of 2008. learned senior counsel appearing for appellant contended that order passed by Tribunal on December 19, 2008, declining to condone delay of 445 days in filing appeal against order dated October 17, 2006, is illegal and that no valid reasons have been given by Tribunal. Condonation of delay is not matter of right. Delay can be condoned by Tribunal only if it is satisfied that delay has been satisfactorily explained by appellant. Reading of order passed by Tribunal shows that appellant failed in providing any satisfactory explanation for inordinate delay of 445 days. It was, therefore, that Tribunal declined prayer. Having gone through order passed by Tribunal and period of this appeal, we fully endorse conclusions of Tribunal regarding absence of reasonable cause for condonation of delay. Therefore, we see absolutely no reason to interfere with order passed by Tribunal declining to condone such inordinate delay. Now coming to I. T. A. No. 588 of 2009, as we have already stated, application in question was made for registration on November 8, 2006. case of appellant was that it had already made application on December 26, 1997. However, fact of having made such application, receipt of which was disputed by Department, could not be proved by appellant in any manner. second application made by appellant on March 10, 2006, was defective one. defect was not cured despite opportunities. This application also was rejected by order dated October 17, 2006. It was in such circumstances that application was made on November 8, 2006. facts noted above show that rejection of defective application dated March 10, 2006 for registration with retrospective effect had attained finality. Thereafter, first valid application made is one dated November 8, 2006, which did not make out any valid circumstance for retrospective registration under section 12A of Act. In such case, there was no circumstances justifying condonation of delay for previous period or registration for any period prior to April 1, 2006, and it was, therefore, that Commissioner granted registration with effect from April 1, 2006. learned counsel for appellant contended that having allowed registration with effect from April 1, 2006, Commissioner should have granted registration with retrospective effect. Though this argument would appear to be attractive, in facts of this case, we are satisfied that Commissioner could not grant registration with retrospective effect. If that be so, Commissioner could have granted registration only with effect from commencement of assessment year in which application in question was made. Therefore, we cannot find fault with view taken by Commissioner or Tribunal. We, therefore, do not find any merit in contentions raised. In result, I. T. A. Nos. 588 of 2009 and 1529 of 2009 are only to be dismissed and we do so. In view of dismissal of I. T. A. Nos. 588 of 2009 and 1529 of 2009, assessment orders for period 2001-02 to 2005-06, which are subject matter of I. T. A. Nos. 37, 38, 39, 40 and 42 of 2012 should be confirmed and we do so. Accordingly, I. T. A. Nos. 37, 38, 39, 40 and 42 of 2012 are also dismissed. *** Kerala Cricket Association v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax
Report Error