CIT(E) doesn’t have authority to delay in submitting application for approval u/s 10(23C)(vi): ITAT

Case Details: Manav Rachana Education Society v. CIT(E) - [2023] 148 taxmann.com 24 (Raipur-Trib.)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Ravish Sood, Judicial Member & G.D. Padmahshali, Accountant Member
  • Nikhilesh Begani, CA for the Appellant.
  • Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

Assessee, a society established to impart education, applied belatedly to the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption) for grant of approval under Sec. 10(23C)(vi). CIT(E) rejected the application on the ground that assessee filed the such application after the prescribed time limit. Pursuant to such rejection, the assessee was unable to apply for approval under section 10(23C)(vi) for the subsequent years.

Aggrieved by the order, assessee preferred an appeal to the Raipur Tribunal and requested that the delay in filing the application to be condoned. Assessee also requested that application for Sec. 10(23C) exemption shall be considered as an application for the next assessment year 2019-20 and onwards.

ITAT Held

The Tribunal held that the request of the assessee that the delay involved in filing the application for approval be condoned, the same could not be accepted in accordance with the mandate of law.

The assessee filed the application for approval under section 10(23C)(vi) on 25-4-2019 for the assessment year 2018-19; it was required to be filed by 30-9-2018 as per the sixteenth proviso to section 10(23C). The Commissioner had no authority under the Act to pardon the delay in filing the application.

Since the Commissioner was not vested with any power to condone the delay involved in filing the application, he had rightly rejected the application.

Further, the assessee’s application for approval under section 10(23C)(vi) for the assessment year 2018-19 was pending until 30-9-2020, which meant they couldn’t apply for the subsequent assessment year 2019-20. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner with directions to consider the same application for the subsequent assessment year 2019-20 and beyond.

List of Cases Reviewed

• • All Angles Education Society v. Chief CIT [2016] 72 taxmann.com 251/241 Taxman 421 (Mad.) (para 9)
  • Aurora Educational Society v. Chief CIT [2012] 20 taxmann.com 46/206 Taxman 72 (AP.) (Mag.) (para 9)
  • Roland Educational & Charitable Trust v. Chief CIT [2009] 309 ITR 50 (Ori.) (para 9)
  • Sanjay Ghodawal University v. CIT [2021] 124 taxmann.com 6/280 Taxman 63/431 ITR 559 (Bom.) (para 10) followed.

List of Cases Referred to

• • All Angles Educational Society v. Chief CIT [2016] 72 taxmann.com 251/241 Taxman 421 (Mad.) (para 9)
  • State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra AIR 1996 SC 2173 (para 9)
  • Aurora Educational Society v. Chief CIT [2012] 20 taxmann.com 46/206 Taxman 72 (AP.) (Mag.) (para 9)
  • Union of India v. Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd. AIR 1996 SC 3285 (para 9)
  • Roland Educational & Charitable Trust v. Chief CIT [2009] 309 ITR 50 (Ori.) (para 9)
  • Sanjay Ghodawat University v. CIT (Exemptions) [2021] 124 taxmann.com 6/280 Taxman 63/431 ITR 559 (Bom.) (para 10)
  • Durg Education & Charitable Society v. CIT (Exemption) [IT Appeal No. 35 (RPR) of 2016, dated 9-9-2022] (para 10).