2025 (7) TMI 1738

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he I.T. Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') relating to the Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a University established and controlled by Government of Gujarat. For the Asst. Year 2021-22, assessee filed its Return of Income declaring Nil income. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 wherein the claim of exemption u/s. 10(23C)(iiiab) was denied to the assessee and treated the income taxable in the hands of the assessee. Assessee has not filed an appeal against the intimation. However when recovery proceedings were initiated, the assessee filed an appeal against the intimation with the delay of more than two years. The assessee claimed that the University is coordina....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ates that this appeal was not prosecuted with due care. The expression 'sufficient cause' is not defined, but it means a cause which is beyond the control of the party. For invoking the aid of the section any cause which prevents a person approaching the POs within time is considered sufficient cause. In doing so, it is the test of reasonable man in normal circumstances which has to be applied. The test whether or not a cause is sufficient is to see whether it could have been avoided by the party by the exercise of due care and attention. In other words, whether it is bona fide cause, inasmuch as nothing shall be deemed to be done bona fide or in good faith which is not done with due care and attention. What may be sufficient caus....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ys had occurred. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that the cases of trivial delays have to be liberally considered, however the cases of inordinate delays have to be approached cautiously. The relevant portion of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is reproduced as under. "In exercising discretion, under section 5 of the Limitation Act the courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case, the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor so the case calls for a more cautious approach but in the latter case no such consideration may arise and such a case deserves ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....quashed. 3. In Facts and in circumstances of the case Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeal), Udaipur has grossly erred while ignoring Exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab) and treated as Taxable Income of Rs. 23,66,93,959/-. 4. The said whole amount added as taxable Income of Rs. 23,66,93,959/- is bad in Law and disserves to be quashed. 5. Looking to the opportunity for representing the defense your appellant preferred an appeal. 6. The appellant craves, leave to add alter amend or withdraw any one or more grounds of appeal. 4. None appeared on behalf of the assessee and an adjournment letter sought for with the following reasons: Most respectfully an adjournment is requested for the hearing which is scheduled on....