TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1393
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... grounds of appeal: 1. The Learned Commissioner has erred in law and on facts in passing an order rejecting the application under section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the manner she did. 2. The order is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore bad in law. 3. The Learned Commissioner has erred in law and on facts by not appreciating the nature of the activities of the appellant. 4. The Ld. Commissioner has erred in law and on facts in stating that the Appellant has not submitted documents when the same is available on the records; 5. The Ld. Commissioner has erred in law and on facts in rejecting the recognization without considering the registration under section 12A of the Act; 6. The Order ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the date of service, the last day by which the appeal should have been made was 20.11.2024. As the Appellant prefers the Appeal now (30.01.2025 leading to the delay of 71 days), the same is barred by limitation in terms of delay, subject to condonation by your kind self. 3. Due to multiplicity of registration proceedings with the name of the assesses being similar, there was confusion with respect to the compliances during the course of registration proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax Exemptions, Bangalore and on the way forward. Further, considering the nature of the activities and organizational structure of the Assessee, there was a delay in taking internal approvals after consulting the professionals. 4. Due to the afo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed delay may be condoned and the appeal may be admitted for adjudication. 6. Ld. D.R. on the other hand, submitted that the appeal may be dismissed in limine as the delay was substantial and it is only due to the negligence of the assessee. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is to be noted that u/s 253(5) of the Act, the Tribunal may admit the appeal filed beyond the period of limitation where it has established that there exist a sufficient cause on the part of the assessee for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time. The explanation therefore, becomes relevant to determine whether the same reflects sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee in not filing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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. 7.2 When substantial justice 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 for injustice being done because of nondeliberate delay. Therefore, we have to prefer substantial justice rather than technicality in deciding the issue. As observed by Apex Court, if the application of the assessee for condoning the delay is rejected, it would amount to legalize in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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, 61 days cannot be considered to be inordinate or excessive. Furthermore, the Chennai Tribunal by majority opinion in the case of People Education and Economic Development Society (PEEDS) v. ITO (100 ITD 87) (Chennai) (TM) condoned more than six hundred days delay. 7.5 In view of the above we are condoning the short delay of 61 days in filing the appeal before us and accordingly admit the appeal for adjudication. 8. Now brie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the parallel section 80G proceedings before the same ld. CIT(E). The ld. CIT(E) issued identical notices to both i.e. the BMC Development Trust and the BMC Alumni Association in connection with the proceedings u/s 80G of the Act bearing the same notice date & due date. The BMC Development Trust have been successfully granted registration u/s 80G of the Act. The AR also drew our attention that in the course of section 80G proceedings, the notice was erroneously issued in the name of Bangalore Medical College instead of Bangalore Medical College Alumni Association thereby leading to confusion and procedural irregularity and accordingly prayed that one more opportunity may be granted before the ld. CIT(E) to represent its case. 11. Ld. D.R.....