TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1650
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....justification: The Ld. CITA erred in refusing to condone the delay in filing the first appeal despite a bona fide and reasonable explanation non-receipt of physical notices and reliance on professional advice, supported by affidavits and contemporaneous material. The delay deserves to be condoned and the appeal admitted for adjudication on merits. 2. Incorrect Quantification of Delay Supreme Court Limitation Extension. The Ld. CIT A erred in mechanically calculating the delay as 1,797 days. The Ld. CIT A failed to exclude the period covered by the Hon'ble Supreme Courts directions in Suo Motu Writ Petition Civil No. 3 of 2020 read with CBDT Circular No. 10/2021, which extended the limitation period for all judicial proceedings up to 28.02.2022, with a further 90-day grace period ending on 29.05.2022. Consequently, the delay should technically be counted only from 30.05.2022, reducing the delay to approximately 848 days. 3. Violation of natural justice: The order was passed without granting an effective opportunity of hearing, the order itself records Present for the appellant Not Applicable. The dismissal in limine violates audi alteram partem and is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....axing gross receipts and in denying exemption to a Government aided educational 5 institution that exists solely for educational purposes and is wholly/substantially financed by the Government. The Appellant is entitled to full exemption us 10 23C iiiab, the entire addition of Rs. 1,94,28,963 deserves to be deleted." 4. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee society filed its return of income for AY 2018-19 on 31.08.2018 declaring total income of Rs. Nil. The return was processed u/s 143(1) on 26.09.2019 determining total income at Rs. 1,88,15,759/- and raising a demand of Rs. 82,19,923/ -. Aggrieved by the said intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act by the DCIT (CPC), Bangalore, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT (A) on 24.09.2024. Thus, the appeal was not filed within 30 days from the date of the impugned order, which expired on 25.10.2019. The CIT (A) noted that there was a delay of 1797 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT (A) has pasted the screenshot at page 3 of the appellate order to show that the "Date of the service of Order/Notice of Demand" was "26-Sep- 2019". The appellant had submitted that he did not receive noti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he income-tax matter was handled by M/s Ashok Bacche and Associates, CAs. The CPC did not allowed exemption because the CA failed to select the correct section under which the return should have been filed. It is submitted that there was outbreak of COVID- 19 pandemic around March 2020 and taking cognizance of the situation, the Government of India and the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed various orders extending the limitation period for filing appeals before various appellate authorities. If such period is excluded, the delay would be 987 days. It is further submitted that after resumption of office of the assessee after COVID-19, need of filing appeal with CIT (A) slipped out of his mind and after realizing the mistake, he has filed the appeal after delay of 987 days. He further stated that the assessee has a strong case on merit. The Ld. AR has relied on CBT Circular No. 10/2021 dated 25.05.2021; Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, decisions in cases of; Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others (167 ITR 471 SC); and Rotary Club of Bombay North Island Charitable Trust Vs. CPC, Bangalore, ITA No. 5673/M/2025 dated 26....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to file appeal after COVID-19 etc. could not be treated as a "sufficient cause" in terms of provisions of section 253(5) of the Act for the inordinate delay of 1797 days. The Ld. AR has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji (supra), which was pronounced on 19.02.1987. There was delay only 4 days in the said case. However, we find that in the subsequent decisions, namely, (i) P. K. Ramachandran vs State of Kerala & Anr. (1997) 7 SCC 556, (ii) Pundik Jalam Patil vs. Executive Engineers, Jalgaon Medium Project, (2008) 17 SCC 448 and (iii) Basawaraj and Anr vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81, (iv) Pathapati Subba Reddy (dies) By L. Rs. & Ors. Vs The Special Deputy Collector (LA), SLP(C) No. 31248 of 2018 (SC), dated 08.04.2024, it has been held by the Hon'ble Court that condonation of delay should not be granted only on the ground that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Basawaraj (supra) summarized the law on the subject issue by stating that where a case has been presented in the Cour....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vs. Katiji and Ors.^2, this Court in advocating the liberal approach in condoning the delay for 'sufficient cause' held that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late; it is not necessary to explain every day's delay in filing the appeal; and since sometimes refusal to condone delay may result in throwing out a meritorious matter, it is necessary in the interest of justice that cause of substantial justice should be allowed to prevail upon technical considerations and if the delay is not deliberate, it ought to be condoned. Notwithstanding the above, howsoever, liberal approach is adopted in condoning the delay, existence of 'sufficient cause' for not filing the appeal in time, is a condition precedent for exercising the discretionary power to condone the delay. The phrases 'liberal approach', 'justice- (1987) 2 SCC 107 = AIR 1987 SC 1353 oriented approach' and cause for the advancement of 'substantial justice' cannot be employed to defeat the law of limitation so as to allow stale matters or as a matter of fact dead matters to be revived and re-opened by taking aid of Section 5 of the Limitation Act." 1....