TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 821
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quested to be condoned on the basis of an affidavit filed with the following statement: - "that I am the Manager of Chaudhary Pawan Singh Shiksha Samiti at Noida under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the "Society"). The assessee is a Charitable Society having members agricultural taxes from rural areas of U.P. who are not conversant with the finer points of income tax laws. It would caused financial hardship of delay is not condoned and the assessee is not heard in appeal. That I have read the contents of the enclosed application for condonation of delay which is true to the best of my knowledge and belief" The Ld. AR has also filed a detailed background explaining the delay vide his letter dated 20.05.2026, whereby it is stated that due to wrong advice rendered to the assessee it was felt that the proceedings u/s 154 of the Act would be sufficient to afford relief and thereafter it was only later with the change of tax consultant that it was deemed fit to file an appeal before the ITAT. 2.1 A perusal of the affidavit extracted (supra) reveals that a very substantial delay of around 11 years has been attributed to es....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ning to condonation of delay. 2.5 Almost all the tax laws, whether they relate to direct taxes or Indirect taxes, contain provisions for condonation of delay in filing appeals, if the appellant (whether it is the taxpayer or the revenue) proves to the satisfaction of the appellate authority that he had sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within time. The genesis for such provisions can be traced to section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which reads as follows: "Extension of prescribed period in certain cases. - Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the Court that he has sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. Explanation: The fact that the appellant or the applicant was misled by any order, practice or judgment of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this section." 2.6 The two essential ingredients for condoning delays are: (i) the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (vii) Even if there was a strong case for acceptance of the appeal on merits that could not be a ground for condonation of delay. (viii) When there is remiss on the part of the advocate, the question that comes up for consideration is whether the mistake was bona fide or was merely a device to cover the ulterior purpose such as latches on the part of the litigant or an attempt to save limitation in an underhand way. 2.7 It was also held in an earlier decision in the case of Ramlal Motilal v. Rewa Coalfields AIR 1962 SC 361, that 'every day's delay must be explained'. Another important requirement is that the 'cause' for the delay must have arisen before the expiry of the limitation period, and, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Ajit Singh Thakur Singh v. State of Gujarat AIR 1981 SC 733, "no event or circumstance arising after the expiry of limitation period can constitute sufficient cause". 2.8 The Ld. DR filed detailed written submissions challenging the condonation petition of the assessee and relied on several authorities to canvass the point that there was no reason why the delay of about 11 years should be condoned. Some of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and in law the CIT(A) has erred in upholding that there is mistake apparent in the assessment order dated 23-07-2014 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the Act. 3. That on facts and in law the CIT(A) has erred in upholding rejection of application filed u/s 154 of the Act. 4. That on facts and in law the CIT(A) has erred in upholding addition to total income of Rs. 94,00,000/-. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify or alter the grounds of appeal." 4. Before us the Ld. AR narrated the facts of the case, as having already been captured in the discussion above, and stated that the assessee out of ignorance and with a desire to buy peace of mind had deemed it fit to surrender Rs. 94,00,000/- before the Ld. AO during AY 2010-11. Thereafter, the three earlier years cases were reopened and this amount was again added. For this purpose, the Ld.AR relied on the case of R. Natarajan Vs. ACIT reported in 135 ITD 55 (Chennai). The Ld. AR read out para 20 of the Hon'ble Third Member's order wherein it is stated that if an item of income was assessed for AY 2008-09 then the assessment of the same amount for AY 2007-08 was a mistake apparent from record.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....genuine hardship to the affected assessee's, the Central Board of Direct Taxes, in exercise of the powers vested in them under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 119, hereby authorizes the Income-tax Officer to take action under section 154, or to admit or dispose of on merits applications under section 154 filed by assessee's seeking relief, for cancelling such protective assessments as have become redundant by waiving, if necessary, the time limit fixed under sub-section (7) of section 154. 2. Every case of the relaxation of the time limit on the authority of this order shall be reported by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, in whose jurisdiction he is functioning within one month of the passing of such order." The Ld. AR concluded his argument by stating that it was clear that the same amount has been added twice over in the case of the assessee and he deserves relief on that account. 4.1 The Ld. DR also relied on several orders of coordinate benches of ITAT in support of her argument that no action u/s 154 was possible in this case. The Ld. DR argued that the matter could not be settled in favour of the assessee u/s 154 of the ....