TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 973
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....15. In the Income and Expenditure Account for the said year, the Petitioner reflected receipts of Rs. 8.97 crores and the aggregate revenue expenditure on its objects, including administrative expenditure, of Rs. 6.89 crores. The said expenditure included expenditure on properties of Rs. 89,56,610, establishment expenses of Rs. 51,35,542/- audit fees of Rs.5 lakhs and depreciation of Rs. 47,12,836 (aggregating to Rs. 1,93,04,988). This represented the amount actually spent by the Petitioner during the year on the Revenue Account. However, in the original Return of Income filed on 30th September 2015, the amount of Rs. 1,93,04,988/- was wrongly reflected as deemed to have been applied for charitable purposes in accordance with Clause 2 of Explanation I below Section 11 (1). 6. On 22nd October 2016, the Petitioner received an intimation under Section 143 (1) in respect of the aforesaid Return of Income and a tax demand of Rs. 78,07,983 was raised on the Petitioner. It was also clarified in the said intimation [under Section 143 (1)] that if the assessee is not satisfied with the adjustments made, it could file a Rectification Application. 7. Accordingly, on 31st December 2016, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the students, are nominal fees taking into consideration that they come from lower income backgrounds. For all the aforesaid reasons, the learned Counsel submitted that the impugned order be set aside and the delay in filing the Revised Return of Income be condoned. 11. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue, submitted that no fault can be found with the impugned order. He submitted that apart from making a bald assertion that the treasurer is not tech-savvy and his staff did not bring the order dismissing the 2nd Rectification Application to his notice, there is no other explanation given by the Petitioner for such an inordinate delay. It is on this basis that the 4th Respondent came to the conclusion that no sufficient cause has been shown for condoning the delay, and therefore rightly dismissed the application filed by the Petitioner. The learned Counsel further submitted that by no stretch of the imagination can one term this order as perverse which would require interference by us under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, he submitted that the Writ Petition be dismissed. 12. We have heard the learned Counsel for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he same and by inadvertence did not draw the attention of the Treasurer to the same. Therefore, it carried the impression that the second rectification application remained pending till it visited the ITBA Portal of the Income-tax Department after receiving the Order dated 23.02.2024 passed by the Respondent No. 4 in the first round of proceedings. The Petitioner also carried this impression in view of transfer of the rectification rights by the CPC to the Respondent No. 1. iv. That since the Petitioner bona fide believed that its second rectification application continued to remain pending it sought professional advise, when, it was suggested to file the present application for condonation of delay in filing of the revised return of income before the Respondent No. 4. Consequent thereto, on 23.02.2021 it has filed the present application. v. The reasonable cause for not filing the revised return of income on or before 31.03.2017 or not filing the present application with the Respondent No. 4 till 23.02.2021 is as referred to hereinabove. In the impugned Order dated 21.04.2025 and the affidavit in reply, this conduct of the Petitioner has been referred to as gross....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er the cause shown for delay afresh and come to its own finding. 14. In support of what we have stated above, we place reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Artist Tree (P) Ltd., v/s. Central Board of Direct Taxes & Ors., [(2014) 369 ITR 691 (Bom)]. The relevant portion of this decision read thus:- "14:- In case of Bombay Mercantile Cooperative Bank Ltd. (supra), this Court again observed that it is well-settled that in matters of condonation of delay highly pedantic approach should be eschewed and a justice-oriented should be adopted. It also observed that a party should not be made to suffer on account of technicalities. 20:- Mr. Pinto submitted that inordinate delay of two years in filing the return of income lands the petitioner in the arena of laches and therefore, no relief should be granted to the petitioner. The principle on which the relief is denied to the party on grounds of delay or laches is that the rights which have accrued to others by reason of the delay in filing the petition should not be allowed to be disturbed unless there is a reasonable explanation for the delay. The real test to determine delay in such....