VIJAYANAGAR EDUCATIONAL TRUST,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,EXEMPTIONS, WARD-1, BANGALORE

PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 21/08/2023 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1055267022 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the assessment year 2018-19.

ITA No.2005/Bang/2025 Vijayanagar Educational Trust, Vijayanagar Page 2 of 10

ITA No.2005/Bang/2025 Vijayanagar Educational Trust, Vijayanagar Page 3 of 10 3. At the outset, as noted by the Registry, there is a delay of 678 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee trust has filed an unsigned application for condonation of delay dated 4.9.2025, which is reproduced below for ease of reference and record:

ITA No.2005/Bang/2025 Vijayanagar Educational Trust, Vijayanagar Page 4 of 10

3.1 On perusal of the unsigned petition for condonation of delay dated 04/09/2025, we observed that the main reason as cited is that as the assessee’s appeal against the cancellation of registration u/s 12AA was pending before ITAT, the assessee was under bona fide impression that decision therein would have direct bearing on present year’s exemption claim. Further, it is stated that the assessee trust being engaged in educational activities in semi- urban/rural areas had limited resources and compliance infrastructure, which caused further delay in collating documents and filing.

ITA No.2005/Bang/2025 Vijayanagar Educational Trust, Vijayanagar Page 5 of 10 appeal within the prescribed time. The explanation, therefore, becomes relevant to determine whether the same reflects sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee in not filing the appeal within the prescribed time.

6.1 Undisputedly, the appeal before us was filed on 08/09/2025, whereas the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC passed & served the order u/s 250 of the Act on 21/08/2023. The Registry in the Order sheet dated 08/09/2025 has noted that “1. Appeal is time-barred by 678 days. 2.Uploaded condonation petition not signed by the person authorized u/s 140 of the Act.” Thus, there is an inordinate delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. On perusal of the above condonation application, we observed that the main cause for such huge delay of 678 days was due to the fact that as the assessee’s appeal against the cancellation of registration u/s 12AA was pending before ITAT, the assessee was under bona fide impression that decision therein would have direct bearing on present year’s exemption claim. Further, it is stated that the assessee trust being engaged in educational activities in semi-urban/rural areas had limited resources and compliance infrastructure, which caused further delay in collating documents and filing.

6.2 First of all we failed to understand what the link is between the filing of two separate appeals i.e. one with regard to cancellation of registration passed by the CIT(E), Bengaluru and another related to quantum assessment for the AY 2018-19 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the CIT(A)/NFAC. What prevented the assessee not to file the present appeal within the prescribed period especially when the assessee was fully aware of the fact that these are two separate proceedings. On perusal of the assessment order, we observed that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee trust on 11/03/2021 submitted before the AO that the assessee trust had preferred an appeal against the order of the CIT(Exemptions),

ITA No.2005/Bang/2025 Vijayanagar Educational Trust, Vijayanagar Page 6 of 10 Bangalore at Hon’ble ITAT vide Appeal No. ITA No. 2006/BANG/2019 and next hearing is fixed on 15/04/2021. Thereafter, the AO passed an assessment order on 20/09/2021 u/s 143(3) of the Act by computing the assessed income at Rs.8,82,63,960/-. We take a note of the fact that against the said assessment order dated 20/09/2021, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC despite the fact that appeal against the order passed u/s 12A of the Act by the CIT(E), Bangalore was pending before the ITAT. Therefore, the contention of “bonafide impression” is outrightly rejected. Further, the contention of having limited resources and compliance infrastructure are mere excuses and not explanation.

6.3 We completely agree with the contention of the ld. DR that the assessee in the present case is very callous in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. It is apt to mention that the law of limitation is the impediment of the Maxim Vigilantibus Non Dormenteibus Jura Subvenitent that ensures the case is filed within the stipulated time frame to avoid unnecessary delays. On the other hand, the condonation of delay is the safeguard to the law of limitation and bars certain cases in which the delay in filing the appeal is justifiable i.e. can be backed by having “sufficient cause”.

6.4 In the present case the explanation offered, as stated above in the petition for condonation of delay, cannot be termed as ‘cause’ much less any ‘sufficient cause’ to condone the inordinate delay. These are mere excuses and not explanation. The Hon’ble Supreme court in 2023 INSC 885 Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased) through L.Rs. and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (09.10.2023 - SC) : MANU/SC/1098/2023 has held as under :-

“29. Considering the aforementioned decisions, there cannot be any quarrel that this Court has stepped in to ensure that substantive

ITA No.2005/Bang/2025 Vijayanagar Educational Trust, Vijayanagar Page 7 of 10 rights of private parties and the State are not defeated at the threshold simply due to technical considerations of delay. However, these decisions notwithstanding, we reiterate that condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability of the explanation, the length of delay being immaterial. Sometimes, due to want of sufficient cause being shown or an acceptable explanation being proffered, delay of the shortest range may not be condoned whereas, in certain other cases, delay of long periods can be condoned if the explanation is satisfactory and acceptable. Of course, the courts must distinguish between an 'explanation' and an 'excuse'. An 'explanation' is designed to give someone all of the facts and ITA No. 53/Bang/2025 Page 9 of 13 lay out the cause for something. It helps clarify the circumstances of a particular event and allows the person to point out that something that has happened is not his fault, if it is really not his fault. Care must however be taken to distinguish an 'explanation' from an 'excuse'. Although people tend to see 'explanation' and 'excuse' as the same thing and struggle to find out the difference between the two, there is a distinction which, though fine, is real. An 'excuse' is often offered by a person to deny responsibility and consequences when under attack. It is sort of a defensive action. Calling something as just an 'excuse' would imply that the explanation proffered is believed not to be true. Thus said, there is no formula that caters to all situations and, therefore, each case for condonation of delay based on existence or absence of sufficient cause has to be decided on its own facts. At this stage, we cannot but lament that it is only excuses, and not explanations, that are more often accepted for condonation of long delays to safeguard public interest from those hidden forces whose sole agenda is to ensure that a meritorious claim does not reach the higher courts for adjudication.”

ITA No.2005/Bang/2025 Vijayanagar Educational Trust, Vijayanagar Page 8 of 10 6.5 Further, the Apex court in the case of Rajneesh Kumar & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash in SLP (Civil Nos.935-936 of 2021 dated 21.11.2024) held as follows:

“12. As regards the law of limitation, we may refer to the decision of this Court in Bharat Barrel & Drum MFG Go. v. The Employees State Insurance Corporation, (1971) 2 SCC 860, wherein this Court held as under:-

“The necessity for enacting periods of limitation is to ensure that actions are commenced within a particular period, firstly to assure the availability of evidence documentary as well as oral to enable the defendant to contest the claim against him; secondly to give effect to the principle that law does not assist a person who is inactive and sleeps over his rights by allowing them when challenged or disputed to remain dormant without asserting them in a Court of law. The principle which forms the basis of this rule is expressed in the maximum vigilantibus, non dermientibus, jura subveniunt(the laws give help to those who are watchfuland not to those who sleep). Therefore, the object of the statutes of limitations is to compel a person to exercise his right of action within a reasonable time as also to discourage and suppress stale, fake or fraudulent claims.” (Emphasis supplied)

6.6 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in H. Guruswamy & Ors. Vs. A. Krishnaiah (Civil Appeal No.317 of 2025 dated 8.1.2025) has observed as under:

ITA No.2005/Bang/2025 Vijayanagar Educational Trust, Vijayanagar Page 9 of 10 16. The length of the delay is definitely a relevant matter which the court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not. From the tenor of the approach of the respondents herein, it appears that they want to fix their own period of limitation for the purpose of instituting the proceedings for which law has prescribed a period of limitation. Once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be nondeliberate delay and in such circumstances of the case, he cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations. While considering the plea for condonation of delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. The court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. It is only if the sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced that the court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning the delay. 17. We are of the view that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. The rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity. No court should keep the ‘Sword of Damocles’ hanging over the head of a litigant for an indefinite period of time.”

6.7 Considering the fact that there is no proper explanation offered by the assessee for the huge delay, according to us, the assessee has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay of 678 days. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd June, 2026

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

Bangalore, Dated 22nd June, 2026. VG/SPS

ITA No.2005/Bang/2025 Vijayanagar Educational Trust, Vijayanagar Page 10 of 10

Copy to:

Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.