TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 474
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2024-25/1067008194(1) rejecting the application for registration u/s 12(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since the issue in both these appeals is common, these are clubbed together, heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. At the outset, there is a delay of 149 days in filing both these appeals before this Tribunal. The ld. A.R. of the assessee also drew our attention on application for condonation of delay along with the affidavit in original sworn before the notary public on 19.03.2025 which are reproduced below for ease of reference and record: 3. We have perused the details filed by the assessee by way of above affidavit to justify the delay and we are sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a nondeliberate delay. (5) There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk. (6) It must be grasped that the judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. 3.2 When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n may arise whether delay was excessive or inordinate. There is no question of any excessive or inordinate when the reason stated by the assessee was a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal. We have to see the cause for the delay. When there was a reasonable cause, the period of delay may not be relevant factor. In fact, the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered the condonation of delay and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the Madras High Court condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. When compared to 21 years, 149 days cannot be considered to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed the materials available on record. On going through the order of the ld. CIT(E), we observe that the ld. CIT (Exemptions) has rejected the application of the assessee with the following observations: "Assessee has withdrawn the application in Form 10AB filed for approval u/s 80G(5)(iii) of the Act. In view of the above, the Form 10AB dated 1.2.2024 for approval u/s 80G(5)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is hereby rejected." 8. Keeping in view of the above, since the assessee trust had itself withdrawn the application for grant of approval u/s 80G(5)(iii) of the Act before the ld. CIT (Exemptions), therefore we are of the opinion that no cause of action arises to the assessee trust to prefer the present appeal before us. Accordingly w....