The IT Act is a self-contained Act and does not provide for condonation of delay in presenting the application for grant of exemption, emphasizing the importance of legislative intent in interpreting statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT :

B.N. Mahapatra, J. - In the present writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order dt. 31st May, 2008 (Annex. 2) passed u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as "IT Act") by which the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Orissa, Bhubaneswar (hereinafter called as "Chief CIT) did not entertain the application of the assessee petitioner made u/s 10(23C)(vi) for the financial year 2006-07 for grant of exemption on the ground that the said application was not filed within the time stipulated under the said section.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the fact of the case as stated in the writ petition is as follows:

The petitioner, in the present case, is a registered trust which runs an educational institution. The trust is constituted, inter alia, with the object to organize and promote education. It is engaged in imparting technical' education and training. The institution has been approved by All India Council for Technical Education for conducting degree course in engineering and technology. The petitioner-trust has been granted registration u/s 12A of the IT Act on 15th Jan., 2003 bearing registration No. 44/1998-99. It filed an application for exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) for the financial year 2006-07 in Form 56D along with requisite documents on 31st May, 2007. This application was accompanied by another application for condonation of delay in presenting the application u/s 10(23C)(vi). The Chief CIT-opposite party No. 1 by order dt. 30th May, 2008 refused to entertain and admit the application made u/s 10(23C)(vi) on the ground that it was filed beyond the time prescribed under the statute and the statute does not vest any power with him to condone the delay. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. Mr. Jagabandhu Sahoo, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the Chief CIT has erroneously held that no power is available to him to condone the delay in filing the application u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the IT Act. The Chief CIT should have admitted the application of the assessee made u/s 10(23C)(vi) for financial year 2006-07. He further submitted that since there is no prohibition under the statute to entertain an application for condonation of delay, the statutory authority can always exercise the power to condone the delay and to consider the application on merit. According to him, if an authority conferred with certain power to adjudicate the dispute, such authority cannot prohibit himself to consider the delay, if any, for the purpose of considering the dispute on merit. He further submitted that in absence of any embargo the action of Chief CIT in not condoning the delay is contrary to the principles of natural justice and fair play. In support of his contention learned Counsel relied on the following decisions:

(i) ITO v. M.K. Mohammed Kunhi AIR 1969 SC 430;

(ii) Kailash Vs. Nanhku and Others, ;

(iii) R.N. Jadi and Brothers and Others Vs. Subhashchandra, ;

(iv) Kandula Prabhakar Rao v. Tumulu Lakshmanamurty and Anr. (1987) 64 CLT 713;

(v) CST v. Member of Sales-tax Tribunal and Anr. RR 1971 Cutt 1325;

(vi) Harendra Prasad Sahu v. Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal and Ors. (1996) 103 STC 333 (Ori);

(vii) State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO and Ors. (2005) 100 CLT 111 (SC);

(viii) Padmashree Krutartha Acharua Institute of Engineering and Technology v. Chief CIT, judgment dt. 15th May, 2008 passed in Writ Petn.(C) No. 4514 of 2008.

Concluding his argument, he submitted that the petitioner which is a technical educational institution exists solely for the purpose of imparting technical education without motive of profit or gain and therefore the order passed by opposite party No. 1 will cause serious prejudice to the interest of the petitioner.

4. Per contra, Mr. A.K. Mohapatra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties submitted that since the statute provides the period of limitation for making application for grant of exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) and admittedly the petitioner has not file