Ita/146/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. New Mangalore Port Trust

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATBD THIS THE 07 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2014 PRESENT HON' BLE MR. JUSTICKHK N.KUMA ANT) HON' BLE MR. JUSTICKH B.MANOHAR ITA NO.146 OF 2008 BBRTWER THR COMMISSIONBR OF INCOME TAXC.R.BUILDING, |ATTAVAR |MANGALORE — APPBRBLLANT (By Sri. JEEVAN J.NEERALGI — ADV.) ANT NEW MANGALORE PORT TRUST |PANAMBUR |MANGALORE —. RESPONDENT (BY SRI.M.V.SESHACHALA — SR.ADV FORORI. ARAVIND V.CHAVAN —- ADV. ) THIS ITA IS FILED U/S.2600A OF THE INCOME TAXACT, 1961 PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SETASIDKB THR ORDER PASSKHD BY THR INCOME TAAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH ‘B’ IN ITANO.924/BANG/2006 DATED 28.9.2007 AND ETC. © THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,N.KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JU DBiGMENT The Revenue has preferred this appeal challengingthe order passed by the Tribunal directing registrationof the assessee under Section 122A ot the Income TaxAct, 1961 (for short ‘the Act) with effect from 1.4.2003. | 2. The assessee is one of the major port trust inthe country. It was notified in the official gazette as amajor port with effect from 1.4.1980. Since theinception as a trust, the assessee has been enjoyingexemptions from income tax in terms of the provisions.of Sub Section (20) of Section 10 of the Act. Consequent.to the amendment brought to Section 10(20) of the Actby introducing explanation with effect from 1.4.2003,.the term ‘local authority’ has been given retrospectivemeaning. By virtue of the amendment, exemptionwhich was enjoyed by the assessee came to an end.Thereafter the assessee applied for registration undersection 12A of the Act by filing an application in FormNo.10A on 27.3.2006. There was a delay in making the said application. Therefore, the Commissioner of IncomeTax, Mangalore by his order dated 28.8.2006 deniedregistration on the ground of delay by refusing tocondone the delay. Aggrieved by the said order, theassessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering the material placedon record, the nature of activity performed by theassessee and aiter taking note of the fact that theassessee was enjoying the benefit of exemption from theprovisions of the Act upto 1.4.2003 and subsequentlythey made an application in the prescribed form, whichcould be done only after obtaining requisite permissionfrom the Central Government, found there was no)malifides in not filing the application within the timeprescribed. Therefore, it condoned the delay anddirected registration under Section 12A of the Act.Agegrieved by the said order the Revenue is in appealbefore this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the revenue assailing theimpugned order contended, the delay in approachingthe authorities for registration is not properly explainedand the Tribunal was not justified in condoning thedelay in filing application. | 4. We do not see any merit in the said submission.Oo. We have gone through the entire order. The|Tribunal has taken pains to set out the facts of the case,the relevant provisions, the amendment, the object withwhich the trust is established, the judgments on whichreliance is placed and later has rightly come to theconclusion that the delay is abonafide- one andtherefore, it requires to be condoned. It has also takennote of the parliamentary legislation which was passedby the Government Major Ports. the nature of work theassessee iS carrying on, the way in which they areprotecting the interest of the country, the lengthy coastline in the west and in the east and held that therefore, it is entitled to registration under Section 12A of the Act. The order passed by the Tribunal is flawless. Wedo not see any justification to interfere with the saidorder. Accordingly we do not see merit in the appeal. No substantial question of law arises for consideration. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. od/-/JUDGE|od/-/JUDGE|