AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1475
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to first take up ground No. 4 for adjudication, but, however, on perusal of grounds No. 5 & 6 of appeal memo, with the consent of both the parties, we deem it proper to decide ground No. 5 & 6 first and the same are reproduced herein below: "5. The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Surat erred in computing the period of delay in filing of appeal as 2250 and odd days instead of 1520 days without considering the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re [2022] 441 ITR 722 (SC). 6. The Additional /Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Surat erred in not considering that the delay in filing the appeal was beyond the control of the appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["Act" in short] until October, 2022. Further he submits that the Chartered Accountant did not cooperate with the assessee in providing Form 10B. He referred to para 5 of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of S. Subramanian & Co. V. ITO & Anr in WP(MD) Nos. 5763 & 5764 of 2024 dated 27.03.2024 placed at page 33-37 of the paper book and argued that the Hon'ble High Court remitted back to the Assessing Officer in the interest of justice by holding that the assessee cannot be held responsible for the acts/omission of the Chartered Accountant. 4. The ld. DR Shri K. Rohan Raj, Addl. CIT submits that the assessee failed to show sufficient cause in explaining the delay of 2250 days. He dr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....used the material available on record. We note that the assessee is a Society registered under Societies Registration Act and got approval under section 12A and 80G of the Act. As rightly pointed out by the ld. DR, which is not disputed by the ld. AR that intimation under section 143(1) of the Act was passed on 21.02.2018, wherein, the exemption under section 11 of the Act was denied. The assessee, aggrieved by the denial of exemption under section 11 of the Act, filed an appeal on 04.06.2024 by stating the delay is of only 1520 days, taking the support of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, reported in [2022] 441 ITR 722 (SC). We note that the reasons stated by the assessee are i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the delay of 2250 days only, but, not 1520 days. 7. Now, we shall examine the reasons explained by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) with reference to 2250 days delay. For better understanding, the reasons stated by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) are reproduced herein below: The reason for the delay in filing an appeal against the order dated 21/02/2018 is because the erstwhile office bearers who were holding the office from 2018-2021 did not disclose anything about the order u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 21/02/2018 to the other Government Body Members and also in the Annual General Body Meeting. Further, there was no Governing Body meeting conducted in 2019-2021. Additionally, there was a dispute b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der under section 143(1) of the Act to the newly elected Governing Body Members and there was no Governing Body meeting conducted in 2019-2021. This reason, in our opinion, is not sufficient as the assessee did not give specific period of which the Governing Body meetings were held, tenure of erstwhile office bearers, tenure of new office bearers, etc. Further, it is also confronted to the ld. AR that the tax matter would be taken care of by the Tax Professionals, but not the office bearers, but, we find no reasonable explanation by the ld. AR in this regard. Further the dispute between the erstwhile office bearers relating to conduct of election was resolved by the Registrar of Societies vide order dated 27.01.2022 and we find that the ld.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has reminded that the concept of "liberal approach", "justice oriented approach", "substantial justice" should not be employed to frustrate or jettison the substantial law of limitation. Having keeping in mind, we find in the present case, the length of delay is definitely a relevant matter that this Tribunal must take into consideration while considering the reasons explained before the ld. CIT(A) as well as argued by the ld. AR before us. It is an established principle where an appeal presented with abnormal delay, beyond limitation, the assessee has to explain as to what is the reasonable cause, which really prevented the assessee to approach this Tribunal within the time. As we discussed above, where we held no sufficient cause was giv....