SOCIETY OF DIVINE PROVIDENCE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, the petitioner-society has challenged the order dated November 3, 1993 (annexure P-6 to the petition), passed by the Commissioner of INcome-tax, Bhopal, by which the learned Commissioner has declined to grant benefit of the provisions of Section 11 of the INcome-tax Act, 1961, for the period earlier to April 1, 1993. The petitioner applied for registration under Section 12A of the INcome-tax Act, 1961, by application dated July 13, 1993, which was granted to the petitioner by the impugned order dated November 3, 1993, only with effect from April 1, 1993, and not from the date of its establishment. As condonation of delay in making the application was refused, the petitioner-society filed an application for review, which remained undecided with the result the petitioner has filed this petition.

(2.) SECTION 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, reads as under :

(3.) SECTION 12A authorises the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner, for reasons to be recorded in writing, to make the provisions of SECTIONs 11 and 12 applicable from the date of creation of the trust or the establishment of the institution on satisfaction that the person making the application was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application before the expiry of the period. The expression "before the expiry of the period" in proviso (i) of Clause (a) of SECTION 12A requires sufficiency of reasons which prevented the person from making the application within one year as required and not the reasons for the period beyond the prescribed period of one year. What the authority has to see is whether or not there were sufficient reasons which prevented the person from making the application within the prescribed period and not the total period after which the application was made. The learned Commissioner was, therefore, required to examine whether sufficient reasons existed for not making the application in the prescribed pro forma within the prescribed period of one year and not with reference to the total period that elapsed before making the application. It is, thus, clear that the learned Commissioner has not approached the matter from its correct perspective.