Ita/588/2009 Of Kerala Cricket Association, Thiruvananth v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Thiruvananth

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/9TH KARTHIKA, 1936 ITA.No. 588 of 2009 ( ) ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 712//COCH/2008 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCHDATED 19-12-2008 APPELLANT/PETITIONER:: ------------------------------------- KERALA CRICKET ASSOCIATION KCA COMPLEX, TC 29/131(1), SASTHAKOVIL ROAD THYCAUD, TRIVANDRUM-695 014. BY ADVS.SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA SRI.TERRY V.JAMES RESPONDENT: -------------------- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31-10-2014,ALONG WITH ITA. 1529/2009, ITA. 38/2012, ITA. 39/2012, ITA. 40/2012 & ITA. 42/2012THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN ITA.NO.588/09 PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A:WRITE UP ON VARIOUS ACTIVITIES PURSUED BY THE KERALACRICKET ASSOCIATION.CRICKET ASSOCIATION. ANNEXURE B:COPY OF APPELLANT'S APPLICATION DT.13.8.96 BEFORE THEDIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION), CALCUTTA.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION), CALCUTTA. ANNEXURE C:COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DT,13.3.97 ISSUED BY THEDIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CALCUTTA INRESPECT OF ANNEXURE B APPLICATION.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CALCUTTA INRESPECT OF ANNEXURE B APPLICATION. ANNEXURE D:COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DT.9.1.97 ISSUED BY THEDIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CALCUTTA INRESPECT OF ANNEXURE C APPLICATION.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CALCUTTA INRESPECT OF ANNEXURE C APPLICATION. ANNEXURE E:COPY OF APPELLANT'S APPLICATION DT.26.12.97 UNDER SEC.12AOF THE ACT.OF THE ACT. ANNEXURE F:COPY OF APPELLANT'S APPLICATION DT.26.12.97 SUBMITTEDBEFORE THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION),CALCUTTA.BEFORE THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION),CALCUTTA. ANNEXURE G:COPY OF LETTER DT.20.11.2001 OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OFINCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), CALCUTTA.INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), CALCUTTA. ANNEXURE H:COPY OF LETTER DT.9.1.02 OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OFINCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), CALCUTTA TO THE COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM.INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), CALCUTTA TO THE COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM. ANNEXURE I:COPY OF LETTER DT.25.2.02 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, TRIVANDRUM TO THE APPELLANT.TAX, TRIVANDRUM TO THE APPELLANT. ANNEXURE J:COPY OF APPLICATION DT.10.3.2006 UNDER SEC.12A FILED BY THEAPPELLANT BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,TRIVANDRUM.APPELLANT BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,TRIVANDRUM. ANNEXURE K:COPY OF LETTER DT.24.5.06 FROM THE ASST.DIRECTOR OFINCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), TRIVANDRUM TO THE APPELLANT.INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), TRIVANDRUM TO THE APPELLANT. ANNEXURE L:COPY OF ORDER DT.17.10.06 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TRIVANDRUM.TAX, TRIVANDRUM. ANNEXURE M:COPY OF APPELLANT'S APPLICATION DT.8.11.2006 TO THECOMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TRIVANDRUM.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TRIVANDRUM. ANNEXURE N:COPY OF ORDER DT.31.5.07 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, TRIVANDRUM.TAX, TRIVANDRUM. ANNEXURE O:COPY OF APPELLANT'S APPEAL DT.JULY 2007 BEFORE THE INCOMETAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN.TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN. ANNEXURE P:COPY OF APPELLANT'S APPEAL DT.14.3.08 BEFORE ITAT. ANNEXURE Q:COPY OF APPELLANT'S APPLICATION DT.14.3.2008 FOR APPENDIX IN ITA.NO.588/09 CONDONATION OF DELAY FILED BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,COCHIN.COCHIN. ANNEXURE R:CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER DT.19.12.08 OF THE INCOME TAXAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN.APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN. ANNEXURE S:COPY OF ORDER DT.19.12.08 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATETRIBUNAL, COCHIN.TRIBUNAL, COCHIN. ANNEXURE T:COPY OF ORDER DT.18.11.97 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX IN THE CASE OF KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERSWELFARE FUND BOARD.TAX IN THE CASE OF KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERSWELFARE FUND BOARD. ANNEXURE P:COPY OF APPELLANT'S APPEAL DT.14.3.08 BEFORE ITAT. ANNEXURE Q:COPY OF APPELLANT'S APPLICATION DT.14.3.2008 FOR APPENDIX IN ITA.NO.588/09 CONDONATION OF DELAY FILED BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,COCHIN.COCHIN. ANNEXURE R:CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER DT.19.12.08 OF THE INCOME TAXAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN.APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN. ANNEXURE S:COPY OF ORDER DT.19.12.08 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATETRIBUNAL, COCHIN.TRIBUNAL, COCHIN. ANNEXURE T:COPY OF ORDER DT.18.11.97 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX IN THE CASE OF KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERSWELFARE FUND BOARD.TAX IN THE CASE OF KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERSWELFARE FUND BOARD. ANNEXURE U:COPY OF ORDER DT.24.7.84 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX IN THE CASE OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM GOLF CLUB.TAX IN THE CASE OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM GOLF CLUB. ANNEXURE V:COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DT.30.12.08 FOR 2006-07. ANNEXURE W:COPY OF ORDER DT.30.3.09 OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL TRUE COPY P.S.TO JUDGE dsn ANTONY DOMINIC & ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- I.T.A.Nos.588 & 1529 of 2009 &37, 38, 39, 40 and 42 of 2012 -------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 31[st ]DAY OF OCTOBER, 2014 JUDGMENT ANTONY DOMINIC , J. All these appeals are filed by the Kerala CricketAssociation. The subject matter of I.T.A.Nos.588/09 and1529/09 is the claim of the Association for registration underSection 12A of the Income-tax Act('the Act' for short), whereasthe other appeals arise out of the assessment orders passed forthe assessment years 2001-02 to 2005-06. 2.1529/2009. We shall first deal with I.T.A.Nos.588/2009 and 3.According to the appellant, they made an applicationseeking registration under Section 12A of the Act for the periodcommencing from the assessment year 1992-93. It is statedthat the said application was made to the Commissioner on26.12.1997. According to the appellant, this application wasuntraceable and therefore was not acted upon by the I.T.A.Nos.588 & 1529/09& 37, 38, 39, 40 and 42/12 -2- Commissioner and that in such circumstances the appellant made another application on 10.3.2006. Admittedly, thisapplication was a defective one. Despite notices issued, thedefects were not cured. As a result, by his order dated17.10.2006, the application was finally rejected by theCommissioner. 4.Aggrieved by the order dated 17.10.2006, theappellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal with anapplication to condone the delay of 445 days. The Tribunaldeclined to condone the delay and accordingly, the appeal wasalso dismissed. It is aggrieved by this order of the Tribunal,which was passed on 19.12.2008, I.T.A.No.1529/2008 is filed. Aggrieved by the order dated 17.10.2006, the 5.Subsequently, the appellant filed another applicationon 8.11.2006 with a prayer to grant registration under Section12A of the Act with retrospective effect. On that application,registration was granted with effect from 1.4.2006.Challenging this order and complaining that the registrationshould have been granted with retrospective effect as prayed I.T.A.Nos.588 & 1529/09 & 37, 38, 39, 40 and 42/12 for, Appeal No.494/Coch/08 was filed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed this appeal also by its order dated19.12.2008. It is this order which is challenged inI.T.A.No.588/2008. 6.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for theappellant contended that the order passed by the Tribunal on19.12.2008 declining to condone the delay of 445 days in filingthe appeal against the order dated 17.10.2006, is illegal andthat no valid reasons have been given by the Tribunal. I.T.A.Nos.588 & 1529/09 & 37, 38, 39, 40 and 42/12 for, Appeal No.494/Coch/08 was filed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed this appeal also by its order dated19.12.2008. It is this order which is challenged inI.T.A.No.588/2008. 6.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for theappellant contended that the order passed by the Tribunal on19.12.2008 declining to condone the delay of 445 days in filingthe appeal against the order dated 17.10.2006, is illegal andthat no valid reasons have been given by the Tribunal. 7.Condonation of delay is not a matter of right. Delaycan be condoned by the Tribunal only if it is satisfied that thedelay has been satisfactorily explained by the appellant.Reading of the order passed by the Tribunal shows that theappellant failed in providing any satisfactory explanation forthe inordinate delay of 445 days. It was therefore that theTribunal declined the prayer. 8. Having gone through the order passed by theTribunal and the period of this appeal, we fully endorse the I.T.A.Nos.588 & 1529/09& 37, 38, 39, 40 and 42/12 conclusions of the Tribunal regarding absence of reasonable cause for condonation of delay. Therefore, we see absolutelyno reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunaldeclining to condone such inordinate delay. 9.Now coming to I.T.A.No.588/09, as we have alreadystated, the application in question was made for registrationon 8.11.2006. The case of the appellant was that it hadalready made an application on 26.12.1997. However, thefact of having made such an application, the receipt of whichwas disputed by the Department, could not be proved by theappellant in any manner. The second application made by theappellant on 10.3.2006 was a defective one. The defect wasnot cured despite opportunities. This application also wasrejected by order dated 17.10.2006. It was in suchcircumstances that the application was made on 8.11.2006. 10.The facts noted above show that the rejection of thedefective application dated 10.3.2006 for registration withretrospective effect had attained finality. Thereafter, the first I.T.A.Nos.588 & 1529/09& 37, 38, 39, 40 and 42/12 valid application made is the one dated 8.11.2006, which didnot make out any valid circumstance for a retrospectiveregistration under Section 12A of the Act. In such a case,there wasno circumstances justifying the condonation of delayfor the previous period or registration for any period prior to1.4.2006 and it was therefore that the Commissioner grantedregistration with effect from 1.4.2006. 11.The learned counsel for the appellant contendedthat having allowed the registration with effect from 1.4.2006,the Commissioner should have granted registration withretrospective effect. Though this argument would appear tobe attractive, in the facts of this case, we are satisfied that theCommissioner could not grant registration with retrospectiveeffect. If that be so, the Commissioner could have grantedregistration only with effect from the commencement of theassessment year in which the application in question wasmade. Therefore, we cannot find fault with the view taken bythe Commissioner or the Tribunal. We therefore do not find I.T.A.Nos.588 & 1529/09 any merit in the contentions raised. 12.In the result, I.T.A.Nos.588/09 and 1529/09 areonly to be dismissed and we do so. 13.In view of the dismissal of I.T.A.Nos.588/09 and1529/09, the assessment orders for the period 2001-02 to2005-06, which are the 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 arealso dismissed. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE dsn Sd/-ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE