HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No. 348 of 2014 Date: 11.06.2014 Between:
Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Renamed as Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA), Secunderabad.
… Appellant And Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad.
… Respondent This Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No. 348 of 2014 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) We have heard Mr. Krishna Koundinya, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant, and gone through the impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated 24.10.2013 by which the learned Tribunal has dismissed the application for condonation of delay of 1804 days.
The first authority, Director of Income Tax (Exemption), Hyderabad, passed order dated 20.09.2007 refusing to grant registration under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Against the said order appeal was sought to be preferred along with an application for condonation of delay and the learned Tribunal by the impugned order refused to condone delay on the ground that no reasonable cause has been explained. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred the present appeal on the following suggested questions of law.
“a) Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Tribunal was right in rejecting the appeal of the assessee on the ground of delay and refusing to look into the merits of the case?
b) Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Tribunal was right in not holding that the order dated 20.09.2007 passed by the Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) is erroneous and contrary to law and that the assessee’s application for registration u/s. 12AA ought not to have been rejected?”
Reading the first question, we are of the view that the learned Tribunal has rightly refused to examine the matter on merit on the ground of delay. It is fundamental that unless the delay is condoned the appellate authority shall not look into the merit of the case. Therefore the aforesaid ground ‘a’ is absolutely absurd. With regard to the second question we are of the view that this Court cannot examine the same as the order dated 20.09.2007 has reached its finality, as no appeal has been preferred against it within the period of limitation. Anyway ignoring the aforesaid ground as suggested, we look into the judgment as to whether the learned Tribunal was right in refusing to condone the delay.
We have gone through the application for condonation of delay made before the learned Tribunal. We have noted the contents thereof and it appears to us that there is no explanation why the delay occurred. If the appellant before us is a statutory body we fail to understand why it has not offered explanation before the learned Tribunal about delayed action. No authority can assume jurisdiction unless there is a factual statement. Therefore, in the absence of any explanation being the ground, the learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the delayed application.
Mr. Krishna Koundinya, learned Senior counsel, however, places reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, Hyderabad vs. Director of Income Tax (Exemptions),
[1]
Hyderabad on that issue. We are of the view that this judgment has no manner of application to the facts of this case. In that case the lapses of the officers of appellant were mentioned as a ground for delay and noted and accordingly accepting the fault of the officer we condoned the delay, as sufficient cause being shown.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 11.06.2014 ES
[1] ITTA.No.519 of 2010, dated 19.02.2014