RASHTRIYA COMPUTER SHAKSHARTA MISSION,PATNA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3666/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 August 2026AY 2024-20254 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal, citing a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' as per Supreme Court judgments. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh consideration of the assessee's application for registration under Section 12A.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Rashtriya Computer Shaksharta Mission, filed an appeal before the ITAT after a delay of 732 days. The assessee sought condonation of delay due to medical treatment of its trustee. The ITAT considered the delay and the assessee's submission regarding its charitable activities.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal was justifiable and whether the assessee's application for registration under Section 12A should be considered denovo.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY&

For Respondent: Ms. Ranu Mukherjee, CIT(DR)

PER SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(E)’] dated 12.01.2024, for AY 2024-25.

2.

The appeal is time by 732 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing of appeal along with medical records to show that the trustee who was looking after affairs of the trust was under long medical treatment which resulted in delay in filing of present appeal. After examination of medical records and perusal of application, the reasons given for delay in filing of appeal appears to be bonafide.

ITA 3666/DEL/2026 RASHTRIYA COMPUTER SHAKSHARTA MISSION 3. The Hon’ble Apex Court has repeatedly held that acceptance of reason explaining delay should be the rule and refusal an exception. By taking a pedantic and hyper technical view the explanation furnished should not be rejected, causing loss and irreparable injury to the party against whom the lis terminates. The expression “sufficient cause” should be liberally construed so as to sub-serve the ends of justice.

3.1. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. 167 ITR 471 has held that liberal approach should be adopted while dealing with an application praying for condonation of delay. Refusing to condone delay can result in meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. Pedantic and hyper technical approach should not be adopted while dealing with an application for condonation of delay.

3.2. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu & Others vs Gobardhan Sao and Others, 2002 SCC (3) 195/2002 SCR (2) 77 has held that the expression “sufficient cause” within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act or Order 22 Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code or any other similar provision should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. The courts should not proceed with the tendency of finding fault with cause shown and reject the petition by a slipshod order in over jubilation of disposal derive. Acceptance of explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal, an exception, more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bonafide can be imputed to the defaulting party.

4.

In light of the reasons given in application and law expounded by Hon’ble Apex Court in dealing with the reasons explaining delay in filing of appeal, the delay in 732 days in filing of appeal is condone and appeal is admitted for hearing on merits.

5.

Shri Shubham Sureka, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the assessee is a charitable trust with the primary objective of promoting education, computer literacy in particular and skill development. The assessee runs its education centre in accordance with scheme Kaushal Yuva Program under Bihar Skill Development Mission an initiative by Govt. of Bihar. The assessee filed an application for grant of registration u/s.12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) before the CIT(E). The CIT(E) vide impugned order in a summary manner dismissed appeal of assessee in ex-parte proceedings. The ld. AR submits that if an opportunity is granted the assessee would be able to substantiate that the activities carried out by the assessee are charitable in nature.

ITA 3666/DEL/2026 RASHTRIYA COMPUTER SHAKSHARTA MISSION 6. Both sides heard, impugned order examined. After considering facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to restore this matter back to the CIT(E) for denovo consideration of assessee’s application for grant of registration u/s.12A of the Act. The CIT(E) shall grant sufficient opportunity of making submissions to the assessee and shall thereafter pass a speaking order, in accordance with law.

7.

The assessee upon service of notice(s) by the CIT(E) shall respond to the same, without fail.

8.

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on Tuesday the 04th day of August, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- AMITABH SHUKLA VIKAS AWASTHY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Delhi Dated: 07-August-2026

ITA 3666/DEL/2026 RASHTRIYA COMPUTER SHAKSHARTA MISSION Copy to: RASHTRIYA COMPUTER SHAKSHARTA MISSION, HOUSE NO-32, ROAD NO-7 SOUTH INDRA NAGAR,NEAR RAM VILAS 1 CHOWK,POSTAL PARK,P.S- KARBIGAHIYA,BLOCK- PHULWARI,DISTRICT-PATNA, BIHAR- 800001, CIT(EXEMPTION), 26TH FLOOR, E-2 BLOCK, PRATYAKSH 2 KAR BHAWAN, CIVIC CENTRE, J.L.N. MARG, MINTO ROAD, NEW DELHI-110002, 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, DELHI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

More judgments on Section 12A

All 6,064 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →