TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 507
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals disregarded the facts and not appreciating that that when a statute specifically provides a particular exemption of a particular receipt from tax, the said receipt cannot be brought to tax merely because the appellant had offered the same to tax in the return of income. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals erred in confirming the treatment of Rs. 60,00,000/- received as One Time Benefit (OTB) from the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) as income. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals erred in not granting relief for OTB received from the BCCI as it is a capital receipt and alternatively by virtue of the provisions of section 56 of the Act since it is a sum received from an institution registered under section 12A and hence would not partake the character of income under section 56 of the Act. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals erred in not appreciating the ratio of decisions cited involving identical facts. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the present appeal arises from the appellate order passed by the ld.CIT(A) w.r.t. the intima....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s always registered under section 12A. This was however not accepted by the Department. The matters had travelled to the tribunal which took a view that since the registration had not been cancelled the appeals by the BCCI were not maintainable. The tribunal however made observations that the BCCI ought to seek fresh registration for certain amendments to its constitution. Against the orders of the tribunal, the BCCI preferred an appeal and a writ petition to the High Court. The said matter was pending for more than a decade, and the final order was passed on 18th February 2025, by virtue of which the contentions of the Department were completely struck down. The impact of the order is that the registration under section 12A of the BCCI is in force till today. As a consequence of the order of February 2025, the OTB is certainly not taxable under section 56 of the Act as it is a sum received from an institution registered under section 12A. In light of the above settled position of law by virtue of the final order passed on 18th February 2025 by the Hon'ble High Court, the assessee was now preferring an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). This is of course a bela....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atutory time limit for filing an appeal. The ld.CIT(A) observed that administrative reasons such as locating old records or consulting professionals also did not justify such an extraordinary delay. Ignorance of law, incorrect legal advice, or assumption about the outcome of pending litigation could not be accepted as valid grounds for condonation, especially when the appellant had access to professional advice throughout. 5.2 The ld.CIT(A) placed reliance on a recent land mark judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union Of India vs Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024 arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 21096 of 2019), wherein while dismissing the writ petition, following observations were made by Hon'ble Supreme Court: - "24. In the aforesaid circumstances, we made it very clear that we are not going to look into the merits of the matter as long as we are not convinced that sufficient cause has been made out for condonation of such a long and inordinate delay. 26. The length of the delay is a relevant matter which the court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not. From the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see failed to cite any valid reasons supported by documentary evidences that the appellant was prevented by "sufficient cause" within the meaning of section 249(3) of the Act, 1961 for in ordinate delay of almost 10 years 09 months in filing of appeal. 6. Before us, the ld.AR reiterated the same contentions as made before the ld.CIT(A).He also placed on the case of Kapil Dev reported in 173 taxmann.com 2100(Del-ITAT)and Maninder Singh in ITA No. 6954/del/2019 wherein such one time receipt was held to be exempt u/s 56(2)(vii)(g) of the Act. 7. The ld.DR on the other hand vehemently argued that the delay being inordinate and without any sufficient cause, request for condonation was rightly rejected by the ld.CIT(A) in terms of section 249(3) of the Act. 8. We have carefully considered all relevant aspects of the case. It is undisputed fact that that the assessee himself offered the impugned sum of Rs 60 lakh in the return filed which was duly accepted by the Department in the intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act, way back in the year 2014. The assessee neither filed any revised return nor agitated the taxability of such sum in any manner and before any other forum for more....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Authorities viz. the Assessing Officer, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as also the Tribunal and there was no judgment of the jurisdictional High Court favouring the applicant, the Officer bearers of the applicant decided not to carry the matter further. 3. However in the applicant's own case for the Assessment Year 2007- 08, the Tribunal, by an order dated 11.1.2013 held in favour of the applicant by following the judgment of this court in the case of "Sind Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., (317 ITR 47)" and the decision in the case of "Mittal Premises Co-operative Society Ltd., (320 ITR 414)" which was delivered in the meantime. The applicant, therefore, filed a Miscellaneous Application on 3.5.2013 before the Tribunal for the Assessment year 2003-04 praying for setting aside the order dated 31.10.2008 on the ground that the Tribunal should follow the decisions in the case of "Sind Co-operative Housing Society Ltd." (supra) and "Mittal Premises Co-operative Society Ltd." (supra) and rectify its decision dated 31.10.2008. By an order dated 7.2.2014, this Miscellaneous Application came to be rejected by the Tribunal. The applicant, therefore, decided t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ition Vs. MST.Katiji& Ors., (167 ITR 471) (SC); (V) N.Balakrishnan Vs. M.Krishnamurthy, ((1998)7 SCC 123). 5. Learned Counsel for the respondent-revenue has made submissions to oppose the notice of motion. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the applicant had taken a conscious decision not to pursue the proceedings after the Tribunal had passed the order dated 31.10.2008 dismissing the appeal of the applicants. He submits that only because subsequent decisions were rendered in the case of "Sind Co-operative Housing Society Ltd." (supra) and "Mittal Co-operative Society Ltd." (supra) followed in appellant's own case by the Tribunal, ipso facto would not entitle the applicant to reopen the issue as concluded by the order dated 31.10.2008 which sought to be appealed by the applicant after a lapse of five years. It is submitted that if the applicant was of the opinion that there was no decision of the Jurisdictional High Court, it was more a reason for the applicant to pursue the matter and the applicant ought not to have accepted the decision of the Tribunal. 6. Having considered the rival submissions, the issue which falls for our considerat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted to be defeated when a litigant has taken a decision not to pursue further proceedings. A new ruling is no ground for reviewing a previous judgment. If this is permitted, the inevitable consequence is confusion, chaos, uncertainty and inconvenience as then no orders can ever attain finality though accepted by parties. 8. We now refer to the decisions as relied upon on behalf of the applicant. Even while referring to the decisions cited by the applicant, we cannot help reiterating that each application for condonation of delay has to be judged on its own facts and circumstances. At the highest guidelines for condonation of delay could be discerned for each decision of Courts. 9. The decision in the "Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sothia Mining and Manufacturing Corporation Ltd." (supra), the same arose out of an order passed by the Tribunal which had condoned the delay in filing the appeal by the respondent. The Tribunal had condoned the delay on the ground that there was a decision of the Supreme Court on the controversy raised and because of the said decision the Assessee had found that it had good reason to prefer an appeal. This decision does not refer to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was the decision of the Supreme Court which really gave a cause of action to the petitioner - assessee to move the Commissioner in revision and hence, the Commissioner was in error in holding that the change of legal position brought about by "India Cements Ltd." was hardly a valid ground for condoning the delay. It was observed that the decision of the Supreme Court amounted to declaration of law as contemplated under Article 141 of the Constitution of India and that same had retrospective effect. It was held that it was only after the decision of the Supreme Court the petitioner had reason to move the Commissioner in revision with a view to obtain refund. This was accepted to be a sufficient cause. The situation in the present case is, however, quite different. The applicant had a complete opportunity to pursue the legal issue as there was no decision of the Jurisdictional High Court. What we find is that there were certain decisions of the other High Courts on the issue which have been noted in the decision of this Court in the case of "Sind Co-operative Housing Society Ltd"(supra) on the basis of which the applicants could have very well pursued the proceedings against....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....256(2) of the Income-tax Act. A delay of about 25 days was occasioned for factors attributable to personal inability of the Counsel for which the litigant cannot be blamed. Factors like gross negligence, contumacy or misconduct cannot be attributed either to the litigant or to the Counsel."(emphasis supplied) This decision, in our opinion, is of no assistance to the applicant inasmuch as it is not the case that the applicant was advised by the Counsel not to pursue the proceedings in view of any conflicting position in law. 12. A reliance on behalf of the applicant on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of "Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors." (supra) and the decision in the case of "N.Balakrishnan Vs. M.Krishnamurthy" (supra) is also inappropriate in the facts of the present case. These decisions lay down the principles of law the Courts would follow to consider what would be a sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, permitting condonation of delay. There can be no dispute on the proposition as laid down in these decisions. These decision would not assist the applicant in view of the voluntary decision of the applicant not ....