PIMPALGAON BASWANT ONION DEALEARS ASSOCIATION,NASHIK vs. CIT (E), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 620/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 August 20266 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the delay was inordinate and the reasons provided by the assessee were vague and insufficient. Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal found no sufficient cause for the delay.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT with a delay of 589 days against the CIT(E)'s order rejecting their registration application. The assessee cited lack of in-house expertise and procedural difficulties as reasons for the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned based on the reasons provided by the assessee, considering the inordinate delay and the principles of sufficient cause.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE

Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & SHRI Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

For Appellant: Shri R.P. Daware (Virtual)
For Respondent: Ms. Bhavya I.V., Jt. CIT

आदेश /ORDER

PER Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, A.M : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune [Ld.CIT(E)] rejecting registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide order dated 16.04.2024.

Submissions of Ld. AR :

2.

The Ld. AR appeared virtually. There was a delay of 589 days in filing of the appeal before this Tribunal. The Ld. AR filed affidavit to explain the delay. The Ld. AR pleaded that delay may be condoned.

Submission of Ld. DR :

3.

The Ld. DR submitted that in this case the assessee had not filed any details before the Ld. CIT(E). Thus, the assessee’s

ITA No. 620/PUN/2026

attitude was non-compliant before the Ld. CIT(E). Similarly, the reason given for condonation of delay is vague and it is not sufficient cause. The Ld. DR pleaded that delay may not be condoned.

Findings and Analysis :

4.

We have heard both the parties and perused the records. Admittedly, there is delay of 589 days in filing of the appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee received copy of order passed by the Ld. CIT(E) dated 16.04.2024 electronically. The assessee filed affidavit explaining the delay. The relevant paragraphs of the affidavit of the President of the assessee are reproduced here as under : “2. That the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune in Form No. 10AD dated 16-04-2024, rejecting the application under section 12AB and cancelling the provisional registration granted earlier, was received by the Appellant Association. 3. That the appeal against the said order could not be filed within the prescribed period of limitation due to bona fide and unavoidable reasons, explained hereinbelow. 4. That the Appellant Association is a small trade association, managed by agriculturist-linked traders and office bearers having no in-house tax or legal expertise, and is fully dependent on external professional advice for statutory compliances. 5. That immediately after receipt of the impugned order, the Appellant Association was under a bona fide belief that:  the rejection was mainly procedural in nature,  the provisional registration period was otherwise valid up to A.Y. 2025-26, and  appropriate corrective steps could be taken administratively. Due to this bona fide belief, the urgency of filing an appeal within limitation was not fully appreciated. 6. That further, the Association was simultaneously dealing with:

ITA No. 620/PUN/2026

 multiple compliances on the income-tax portal,  practical difficulties in retrieving and compiling old records, and  coordination issues among office bearers, resulting in delay in taking a collective decision for filing the appeal. 7. That the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate, and has occurred purely due to bonafide misunderstanding of the legal position and procedural constraints. 8. That immediately upon receiving proper professional advice, the Appellant Association has without any further loss of time filed the present appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal along with this application for condonation of delay.”

5.

We have studied the affidavit carefully and in the affidavit the assessee has vaguely given reasons without explaining the delay properly. The assessee’s contention that the assessee does not have any in-house tax or legal expertise is vague as the assessee have obtained the legal advice from the person who had filed application before the Ld. CIT(E) for registration u/s 12A of the Act.

6.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee vs Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others Civil Appeal Nos.8183-8184 of 2013 vide order dated 13/09/2013 has laid down following principles for deciding Condonation Application: Quote, "15. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be culled out are: i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. ii) The terms "sufficient cause" should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the

ITA No. 620/PUN/2026

fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact- situation.

iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis.

iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of.

v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact.

vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice.

vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsule the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play.

viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation.

ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach.

x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation.

xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation.

xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinized and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception.

ITA No. 620/PUN/2026

xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude. "Unquote. (emphasis supplied).

6.1 Thus, Hon'ble Supreme Court has explained that the Inordinate Delay warrants Strict Approach, and earlier conduct of the petitioner should be analyzed.

6.2 In this case when we apply the above mentioned Principles, the Delay in this case is Inordinate hence warrants Stricter approach. The Assessee was non-compliant even before the Commissioner of Income Tax. The reasons mentioned in the condonation petition are vague. Assessee has failed to demonstrate that there was any sufficient cause for delay.

6.3 For all the reasons discussed above, the Delay is not condoned, and appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

7.

Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that there is no sufficient cause for such inordinate delay in filing of the appeal before this Tribunal. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we do not condone the delay and dismiss the appeal of the assessee.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 20th August, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे/Pune; दिन ांक/Dated : 20-08-2026 Ravi Digitally signed by Ravi Kumar Ravi Kumar Kumar Date: 2026.08.21 17:49:30 +05'30'

ITA No. 620/PUN/2026

आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. The concerned Pr. CIT, Pune 4. DR, ITAT, ‘B’ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण,पुणे / ITAT, Pune

More judgments on Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi)

All 429 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →