Kerala Cricket Association vs Additional Commissioner of Income Tax

Antony Dominic, J.—All these appeals are filed by the Kerala Cricket Association. The subject matter of I.T.A. Nos. 588 of 2009 and 1529 of 2009 is the claim of the association for registration under section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short), whereas the other appeals arise out of the assessment orders passed for the 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 the appellant, they made an application seeking registration under section 12A of the Act for the period commencing from the assessment year 1992-93. It is stated that the said application was made to the Commissioner on December 26, 1997. According to the appellant, this application was untraceable and, therefore, was not acted upon by the Commissioner and that in such circumstances the appellant made another application on March 10, 2006. Admittedly, this application was a defective one. Despite notices issued, the defects were not cured. As a result, by his order dated October 17, 2006, the application was finally rejected by the Commissioner.

Aggrieved by the order dated October 17, 2006, the appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal with an application to condone the delay of 445 days. The Tribunal declined to condone the delay and, accordingly, the appeal was also dismissed. It is aggrieved by this order of the Tribunal, which was passed on December 19, 2008, I.T.A. No. 1529 of 2008 is filed.

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. On that application, registration was granted with effect from April 1, 2006. Challenging this order and complaining that the registration should have been granted with retrospective effect as prayed for, Appeal No. 494/Coch/08 was filed before the Tribunal. The 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.

The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the order passed by the Tribunal on December 19, 2008, declining to condone the delay of 445 days in filing the appeal against the order dated October 17, 2006, is illegal and that no valid reasons have been given by the Tribunal.

Condonation of delay is not a matter of right. Delay can be condoned by the Tribunal only if it is satisfied that the delay has been satisfactorily explained by the appellant. Reading of the order passed by the Tribunal shows that the appellant failed in providing any satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay of 445 days. It was, therefore, that the Tribunal declined the prayer.

Having gone through the order passed by the Tribunal and the period of this appeal, we fully endorse the conclusions of the Tribunal regarding absence of reasonable cause for condonation of delay. Therefore, we see absolutely no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal declining to condone such inordinate delay.

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 case of the appellant was that it had already made an application on December 26, 1997. However, the fact of having made such an application, the receipt of which was disputed by the Department, could not be proved by the appellant in any manner. The second application made by the appellant on March 10, 2006, was a defective one. The defect was not cured despite opportunities. This application also was rejected by order dated October 17, 2006. It was in such circumstances that the application was made 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. In such a case, there was no circumstances justifying the condonation of delay for the previous period or registration for any period prior to April 1, 2006, and it was, therefore, that the Commissioner granted registration with effect from April 1, 2006.

The learned counsel for the appellant contended that having allowed the registration with effect from April 1, 2006, the Commissioner should have granted registration with retrospective effect. Though this argument would appear to be attractive, in the facts of this case, we are satisfied that the Commissioner could not grant registration with retrospective effect. If that be so, the Commissioner could have granted registration only with effect from the commencement of the assessment year in which the application in question was made. Therefore, we cannot find fault with the view taken by the Commissioner or the Tribunal. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the contentions raised.

In the result, I.T.A. Nos. 588 of 2009 and 1529 of 2009 are only to be dismissed and we do so. In view of the dismissal of I.T.A. Nos. 588 of 2009 and 1529 of 2009, the assessment orders for the period 2001-02 to 2005-06, 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 are also dismissed.