Ita/539/2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income -Tax v. M/S Chitradurga Urban Development Authority

IN THB HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATEBD THIS THE [th]DAY OF JANUARY 2015) PRESENT THER HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMARAN 1 THER HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VBEBRAPP I.T.A. NO.539/2013 BETWEEN : 1.|The Commissioner of Income-tax,Park View Building,|No.284/1, 4[th]Main,P.J. Extension,Davangere — 9// O02. 2.|The Commissioner of Income-tax,Park View Building,|No.284/1, 4[th]Main,P.J. Extension,Park View Building,|No.284/1, 4[th]Main,P.J. Extension, Davangere — 977 OO2. ...APPELLANTS (By Sri.K.V.Aravind, Adv.) AND :. M/s. Chitradurga UrbanDevelopment Authority,Kelagote, Chitradurga. ... RESPONDENT (By Sriyuths.A.Shankar & M.Lava, Advs.)|. . . . -9O-. This I.T.A. is filed under Section ZJO0OA of thIncome Tax Act, 1961, arising out of order dated14.08.2008 passed in ITA No.1207/Bang/2007 prayingTO :. 9#;formulate the substantial questions of lawstated therein,stated therein, 9##;Allow the appeal and set-aside the orderpassed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Bangalore in I.T.A. No.1207/Bang/2007 dated14.08.2008 and confirm the order passed bythe Appellate Commissioner confirming theorder passed by the Commissioner of IncomeTax, Davangere. passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Bangalore in I.T.A. No.1207/Bang/2007 dated14.08.2008 and confirm the order passed bythe Appellate Commissioner confirming theorder passed by the Commissioner of IncomeTax, Davangere. This I.T.A. coming on_ fororders,this day,|N.Kumar J., delivered the following: JUDGMENT This»appeal1S|preferredby the.Revenue challenging the order passed by the Tribunal dated 14[th]August, 2008 directing the Commissioner of Income-Tax to grant registration under Section 12AA of the Income-Tax Act to the assessee, from the assessment year2003-2004 onwards. — 2. There is a delay of 1807 days in preferring thisappeal. Hence, an application is filed to condone the delay. The affidavit filed in support of the applicationdiscloses that the order passed by the Tribunal on14.08.2008 was accepted by the Commissioner ofIncome-tax, but he recommended for preferring anappeal in respect of that portion of the order grantingregistration retrospectively from the year 2003-2004. ©However, the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax did not)accept the said recommendation and accepted the orderof the Tribunal in its entirety. Thus, the said orderattained finality. It is only in the year 2012, in numberof cases, when the Tribunal held that the UrbanDevelopment Authorities are not entitled to registrationunder Section 12AA of the Act, in order to maintain)consistency and equal treatment, the present appeal isfiled. 3. If the order of the Tribunal was in accordancewith law and accepted by the Chief Commissioner ofIncome-Tax, merely because in the subsequent years in some of the cases, the Tribunal took a different view,|cannot be a ground for condoning the delay inpreferring the appeal. If such a contention is accepted,the provision regarding limitation would loose itsefficacy and there would not be any finality to theseorders. As in the normal course, we find the higherauthorities do lay down law reversing the earlierjudgments. That cannot be a ground for condoning thedelay. Therefore, we do not find any merit in thisapplication. Hence,the|applicationfiled forcondonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently,appeal is also.dismissed Sd/-.JU DGE Sd/-.JUDGE| SPS