TEN SMILES FOUNDATION,FARIDABAD vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH

At the outset, the Ld. AR prayed for condonation of the delay in filing this appeal. Vide his submission filed during the hearing before us, it was contended that initially the assessee was advised to file a fresh application under section 80G(5)(iii) of the Act, which was complied with. The new application under section 80G(5)(iii) of the Act was also rejected on 13.11.2024. Thereafter, the assessee was advised to file this appeal. The Ld. AR further contended that the assessee did not gain any thing by filing belated appeal. In fact, the assessee acted as advised from time to time and there was no malafide or deliberate delay in filing this appeal. Further, it was also submitted that the assessee was not having regular professional assistance to look after the filing of the appeal in the income tax matter.

The Ld. AR drawing our attention to the following copy of the letter issued by the Ld. CIT(E), submitted that the non-compliance on the part of the assessee was only due to the fact that it had not received any email/ notice on or before the date of compliance as the said notice issued by the Ld. CIT(E) did not contain the email/address of the recipient/addressee:

We have heard both parties and have perused the material available on record. We find merit in the arguments of the Ld. AR.

The condonation of delay in filing this appeal is on the record. There is no dispute that under section 254 of the Act, the Tribunal may pass such orders as it thinks fit. We are of the considered view that there is no malafide or deliberate delay in filing this appeal. In the interest of substantial justice, the delay in filing this appeal deserves condonation so that this appeal is decided on merit. We do not see any prejudice which will be caused to the Revenue in deciding this appeal on merit. In case of HL Malhotra & Company Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 211/2020 & CM Appeals 32045-32047/2020 dated 22nd December, 2020), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that in absence of anything male fide or deliberate delay as a dilatory tactic, the Court should normally condone the delay as the intent is always to promote substantial justice. The explanation of the assessee therefore, becomes relevant to determine whether the same reflects sufficient and reasonable cause on his part in not presenting this appeal within the prescribed time.

In case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs Mst. Katiji and others (1987) 2 SCC 107, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the expression ‘Sufficient Cause’ employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner to sub- serves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of Courts. It was further held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that such liberal approach is adopted on one of the principles that refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. Another principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. It was also held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that there is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of male fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk. In the instant case, applying the same principles, we find that there is no culpable negligence or malafide on the part of the assessee in delayed filing of appeal and it does not stand to benefit by resorting to such delay. Therefore, in the factual matrix of the present case, we find that there exists sufficient and reasonable cause for condoning the delay in filing this appeal as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, where substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserved to be preferred.

In light of aforesaid discussions, in exercise of powers under section 254 of the Act, we hereby condone the delay in filing this appeal as we are satisfied that there is sufficient cause for not presenting this appeal within the prescribed time.

The purpose of granting approval under section 80G of the Act is to provide/enhance the socio-economic welfare to achieve the directive principles of the state policy. Section 80G of the Act is welfare legislation rather than penal in nature. Further, it is evident that the Ld. CIT(E) has rejected the approval under section 80G of the Act mainly due to non- compliance on the part of the assessee. Therefore, considering the larger interest of justice, objectives and intent of the provisions of section 80G of the Act and in view the facts in entirety & afore stated observations and in the interest of justice, we are setting aside the impugned order and are remanding the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for deciding the issue of approval under section 80G of the Act afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant assessee. Ordered accordingly.

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.