SATVAYUR EXTRACTS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ACIT CIRCLE 6(1)(1), BLR, BENGALURU

PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Addl/JCIT(A), Thiruvanantpuram dated 09.12.2025 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025- 26/1083462762(1) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the assessment year 2009-10.

ITA No.185/Bang/2026 Satvayur Extracts Limited, Bengaluru Page 2 of 9 income of ₹98,37,424/-, resulting in taxation of income which never accrued to the Appellant.

ITA No.185/Bang/2026 Satvayur Extracts Limited, Bengaluru Page 3 of 9 4. Aggrieved by the intimation passed u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 04.11.2016, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. Addl/JCIT(A)/CIT(A).

ITA No.185/Bang/2026 Satvayur Extracts Limited, Bengaluru Page 4 of 9 two & half years but of no use. Thereafter, the assessee had also filed a grievance on the CPGRAM Portal. The AO also rejected the grievance stating that there is no mistake apparent on record. Lastly, the ld. A.R. submitted that the mistake came to the assessee’s knowledge only upon receipt of the intimation passed u/s 143(1) of the Act in the year 2016 by which time the statutory time limit for filing a revised return had already expired and accordingly prayed that in the interest of justice and equity the appeal of the assessee may be allowed otherwise it will cause irreparable loss to the assessee.

ITA No.185/Bang/2026 Satvayur Extracts Limited, Bengaluru Page 5 of 9 and Part –B – Profit & loss account. However, due to an inadvertent clerical error, while filing schedule BP (computation of income from business or profession), the aforesaid loss of Rs.98,37,424/- was mistakenly entered as a positive figure instead of negative figure and consequently the said loss was erroneously declared as business income in the return of income filed for the AY 2009-10. Further, the ld. A.R. of the assessee submitted that upon receipt of the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act, the assessee promptly filed an online rectification application on 07.12.2016, however, the same was rejected with a remark that issue may be taken up with the JAO. Thereafter, the assessee made repeated representation and follow up before the JAO for almost two & half years but of no use. Thereafter, the assessee had also filed a grievance on the CPGRAM Portal. The AO also rejected the grievance stating that the return was processed as filed and that the mistake could have been rectified by filing a revised return. It was further stated that there was no mistake apparent on record. Further, the AR submitted that despite multiple rectification applications, the AO neither adjudicated the same nor passed any order u/s 154 of the Act. In the absence of any formal order, the assessee was effectively deprived of its rights to pursue appellate remedies. It is submitted that only upon the receipt of the response through the CPGRAM Portal, the assessee became aware of the revenue’s stand, pursuant to which an appeal was filed before the ld. Addl/JCIT(A) / CIT(A).

9.1 On perusal of the explanation advanced by the assessee to justify the delay, we are satisfied that there is no malafide intention on the part of the assessee in filing the appeal belatedly before the ld. Addl/JCIT(A) and the assessee has demonstrated sufficient cause in filing the appeal belatedly before the ld. Addl/JCIT(A). In our considered opinion, the assessee after receiving the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act after a gap of 6 years has constantly

ITA No.185/Bang/2026 Satvayur Extracts Limited, Bengaluru Page 6 of 9 attempted to pursue its case before the various forums & thus it cannot be said that the assessee was very callous in its approach in filing the appeal belatedly before the ld. Addl/JCIT(A).

9.2 While considering a similar issue the Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and Ors. (167 ITR 471) laid down six principles. For the purpose of convenience, the principles laid down by the Apex Court are reproduced hereunder:

(1) Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.

(2) Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown 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. (3) 'Every day's delay must be explained' does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational, commonsense and pragmatic manner.

(4) When substantial justice and technical consideration 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 nondeliberate delay. (5) There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk. (6) It must be grasped that the judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.

9.3 When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have vested right for injustice being done because of non deliberate delay. Therefore, we have to prefer substantial justice rather than technicality in deciding the issue. As observed by Apex Court, if the application of the assessee for condoning the delay is rejected, it would amount

ITA No.185/Bang/2026 Satvayur Extracts Limited, Bengaluru Page 7 of 9 to legalize injustice on technical ground when the Tribunal is capable of removing injustice and to do justice. Therefore, this Tribunal is bound to remove the injustice by condoning the delay on technicalities. If the delay is not condoned, it would amount to legalizing an illegal order which would result in unjust enrichment on the part of the State by retaining the tax relatable thereto. Under the scheme of Constitution, the Government cannot retain even a single pie of the individual citizen as tax, when it is not authorized by an authority of law. Therefore, if we refuse to condone the delay, that would amount to legalize an illegal and unconstitutional order passed by the lower authority.

9.4 Further, in the case of People Education & Economic Development Society Vs/ ITO reported in 100 ITD 87 (TM) (Chen), wherein held that “when substantial justice and technical consultation 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 non-deliberate delay”.

9.5 The next question may arise whether delay was excessive or inordinate. There is no question of any excessive or inordinate when the reason stated by the assessee was a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal. We have to see the cause for the delay. When there was a reasonable cause, the period of delay may not be relevant factor. In fact, the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered the condonation of delay and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the Madras High Court condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. When compared to 21 years, 9 years cannot be considered to be

ITA No.185/Bang/2026 Satvayur Extracts Limited, Bengaluru Page 8 of 9 inordinate or excessive. Furthermore, the Chennai Tribunal by majority opinion in the case of People Education and Economic Development Society (PEEDS) v. ITO (100 ITD 87) (Chennai) (TM) condoned more than six hundred days delay. Therefore, in our opinion, by preferring the substantial justice, the delay of 3221 days has to be condoned and accordingly we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. Addl/JCIT(A) and admit the appeal for adjudication.

ITA No.185/Bang/2026 Satvayur Extracts Limited, Bengaluru Page 9 of 9

Order pronounced in the open court on 30th July, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Prashant Maharishi) (Keshav Dubey) Vice President Judicial Member

Bangalore, Dated 30th July,2026. VG/SPS

Copy to:

Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.