What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing sufficient cause shown by the assessee and emphasizing the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. The matters were then remitted back to the lower appellate authority for fresh adjudication on merits.

The assessee, Sri Aadarsha Education Society, filed appeals before the ITAT with a delay of approximately 3 years. The lower appellate authority had dismissed the appeals without condoning this delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeals before the lower appellate authority should be condoned based on sufficient cause, and whether the appeals should be decided on merits.

Sri Aadarsha Education Society vs ITO | ITAT Bangalore 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B’’BENCH: BANGALORE

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

Hearing: 23.03.2026Pronounced: 29.05.2026

PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against the separate orders of ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Chennai both dated 6.6.2025 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025- 26/1076766545(1) for the assessment year 2020-21 & vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1076766779(1) for the assessment year 2021-22 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). Since the issue involved in both these appeals is common in nature, these are clubbed together, heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.

ITA Nos.1992 & 1993/Bang/2025 Sri Aadarsha Education Society, Bengaluru Page 2 of 21 2. As noted by the Registry, there is a delay of 10 days in filing both these appeals before this Tribunal. The ld. A.R. of the assessee also drew our attention on applications for condonation of delay dated 10.9.2025 for both the assessment years on similar lines along with the affidavits in original sworn before the notary public, the copy of AY 2020-21 are reproduced below for ease of reference and record:

ITA Nos.1992 & 1993/Bang/2025 Sri Aadarsha Education Society, Bengaluru Page 3 of 21

ITA Nos.1992 & 1993/Bang/2025 Sri Aadarsha Education Society, Bengaluru Page 4 of 21

ITA Nos.1992 & 1993/Bang/2025 Sri Aadarsha Education Society, Bengaluru Page 5 of 21

ITA Nos.1992 & 1993/Bang/2025 Sri Aadarsha Education Society, Bengaluru Page 6 of 21

ITA Nos.1992 & 1993/Bang/2025 Sri Aadarsha Education Society, Bengaluru Page 7 of 21

ITA Nos.1992 & 1993/Bang/2025 Sri Aadarsha Education Society, Bengaluru Page 8 of 21

ITA Nos.1992 & 1993/Bang/2025 Sri Aadarsha Education Society, Bengaluru Page 9 of 21

ITA Nos.1992 & 1993/Bang/2025 Sri Aadarsha Education Society, Bengaluru Page 10 of 21

ITA Nos.1992 & 1993/Bang/2025 Sri Aadarsha Education Society, Bengaluru Page 11 of 21 2.1 Perused the record and having heard the ld. Counsel for the assessee as well as ld. D.R., it is perceived that explanation offered by the assessee for both the Assessment years are plausible and sufficient cause been shown by the assessee, which prevented them from filing the appeals within the prescribed period and accordingly, we are incline to condone the short delay of 10 days in filing the appeals before this Tribunal and admit the same for adjudication on merits.

In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal for AY 2020-21:

ITA Nos.1992 & 1993/Bang/2025 Sri Aadarsha Education Society, Bengaluru Page 12 of 21

In ITA No.1993/Bang/2025 for the AY 2021-22, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

ITA Nos.1992 & 1993/Bang/2025 Sri Aadarsha Education Society, Bengaluru Page 13 of 21

On perusal of the order of ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Chennai for both these years, we observed that the ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Chennai dismissed both these appeals by not condoning the delay of almost 3 years. On perusal of Form No.35 of both these years, the grounds for condonation of delay as cited by the assessee are reproduced below:

ITA Nos.1992 & 1993/Bang/2025 Sri Aadarsha Education Society, Bengaluru Page 14 of 21

For the AY 2020-21:

ITA Nos.1992 & 1993/Bang/2025 Sri Aadarsha Education Society, Bengaluru Page 15 of 21

ITA Nos.1992 & 1993/Bang/2025 Sri Aadarsha Education Society, Bengaluru Page 16 of 21

For the AY 2021-22:

ITA Nos.1992 & 1993/Bang/2025 Sri Aadarsha Education Society, Bengaluru Page 17 of 21

ITA Nos.1992 & 1993/Bang/2025 Sri Aadarsha Education Society, Bengaluru Page 18 of 21

5.1 On going through the above condonation applications, we noticed that sufficient cause has been demonstrated by the assessee which prevented them from filing the appeals within the prescribed period.

On the contrary the ld. D.R. vehemently objected for granting the condonation of delay.

We have perused the details filed by the assessee to justify the delay and we are satisfied that there is no malafide intention on the part of the assessee in filing the appeal belatedly before us. It is to be noted that u/s 253(5) of the Act the Tribunal may admit the appeal filed beyond the period of limitation where it has established that there exists a sufficient cause on the part of the assessee for not presenting the appeals within the prescribed time. The explanation therefore, becomes relevant to determine whether the same reflect sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee in not filing these appeals within the prescribed time.

7.1 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:

ITA Nos.1992 & 1993/Bang/2025 Sri Aadarsha Education Society, Bengaluru Page 19 of 21 (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.

7.2 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 nondeliberate 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 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,

ITA Nos.1992 & 1993/Bang/2025 Sri Aadarsha Education Society, Bengaluru Page 20 of 21 that would amount to legalize an illegal and unconstitutional order passed by the lower authority.

7.3 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”.

7.4 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, 3 years 4 months cannot be considered to be 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 almost 3 years has to be condoned and accordingly we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.

ITA Nos.1992 & 1993/Bang/2025 Sri Aadarsha Education Society, Bengaluru Page 21 of 21 8. Now having condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Chennai, we deem it fit and proper to remit the entire issue to the file of ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Chennai to decide afresh in accordance with law on merits of the case. Needless to say, a reasonable opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. Accordingly, with the above observations, the issue in dispute is remitted back to the file of AO for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 29th May, 2026

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

Bangalore, Dated 29th May,2026. VG/SPS

Copy to:

The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 5 Guard file

By order

Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.

SRI AADARSHA EDUCATION SOCIETY ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(EXEMPTION), BANGALORE

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments