GHASIRAM SHEOLALJI VYAS SHRIMALI BRAMHIN TRUST,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 1 EXEMP NAGPUR, NAGPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 511/NAG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur13 October 2026AY 2010-116 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was supported by sufficient cause. Citing the Supreme Court's decisions in B. Madhuri Goud vs. B. Damodar Reddy and Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST Katiji & Others, the Tribunal emphasized a liberal, pragmatic, and justice-oriented approach to condoning delays. It found that the assessee's request for condonation had reasonable cause, and no benefit was derived from the delay. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, condoned the delay, and remitted the issue to the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to substantiate its case with evidence, and principles of natural justice were to be followed, ensuring adequate opportunity of hearing. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shrimali Bramhin Trust, appealed an order from the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, concerning Assessment Year 2010-11. The Income Tax Department received information about time deposits of Rs. 1,90,718 made by the assessee in FY 2009-10, and noted the non-filing of a return for AY 2010-11. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147, issuing notices under Section 148 and 142(1). The assessee failed to respond. The AO, invoking Section 144, made an addition of Rs. 3,65,422 based on Form 26AS and passed an order under Section 144 r.w.s. 147. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), but the appeal was dismissed in limine due to a delay that was not condoned, as the assessee failed to provide sufficient reasons.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal, thereby dismissing the appeal in limine, turning on the interpretation of 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as applied to the Income Tax Act. Assessee's contention: The delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control, not a deliberate or wanton act. The assessee argued for a liberal and pragmatic approach to condonation, emphasizing a good case on merits and seeking an opportunity to present evidence. Revenue's contention: The Ld. DR supported the order of the CIT(A), implying that the delay was not sufficiently explained.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 147,Section 5

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH :: NAGPUR

Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

Hearing: 09.10.2026Pronounced: 13.10.2026

PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi passed u/sec. 250 of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2010-11. The assessee has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the order of the CIT(A) in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal and sustaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a trust. The income tax department has received the information that the assessee has made time deposits of Rs. 1,90,718/- in the F.Y. 2009-10 and the assessee has not filed the return of income for A.Y.2010-11. The Assessing Officer (A.O) has a reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and fallowed the due process of law and issued notice u/sec. 148 of the Act. Further, notice u/sec. 142(1) of the Act was issued requesting the assessee to file certain details and information in support of the time deposits and there was no response.

The A.O find that the assessee has not made submissions on the disputed issue in spite of providing adequate opportunities of hearing and finally the A.O considering the information available on record has invoked the provisions of section 144 of the Act and made addition of time deposits and income as per Form.No.26AS and assessed the total income of Rs.3,65,422/-and passed the order u/sec. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 26.12.2018. 3. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) found that there is a delay in filing the appeal and the assessee has not explained the sufficient reasons for the delay. He further did not condone the delay and dismissed the assessee’s appeal in limine. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal.

4.

At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the CIT(A) has not considered the facts and valid reasons of the assessee and the delay in filling the appeal was neither deliberate nor wanton act, but the circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. The Ld.AR emphasized that the assessee has a good case on merits and prayed for an opportunity to substantiate with material evidences before the lower authorities. Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the order of the CIT(A).

5.

Heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Prima-facie, the CIT(A) has passed the order considering the fact that there is no proper compliance by the assessee in spite of providing adequate opportunity of hearing and the delay in filling the appeal was not explained with reasonable cause. Whereas the assessee has raised grounds of appeal challenging addition made by the Assessing Officer and there could be various reasons for no proper compliance. Whereas the assessee has made a request for condonation of delay in filling the appeal and dealt by the CIT(A). Therefore, considering the facts, provisions and the condonation of delay request is of the opinion that there is a reasonable cause in filing of the appeal with delay and there is no benefit derived in causing delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of B. MadhuriGoud vr. B.Damodar Reddy (2012) 12 SCC 693, has held that the following principles must be kept in mind while considering the application for condonation of delay;

(i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice oriented, non- 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 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 cause 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 encapsulate 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 litigation. (xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, is representation 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. (xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude.”

6.

The Hon'ble supreme court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji& others (167 ITR 471) (SC) has observed as under :

“ The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting s. 5 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on "merits". The expression "sufficient cause" employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice—that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of Courts. The doctrine of equality before law demands that all litigants, including the State as a litigant, are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an even-handed manner. There is no warrant for according a step-motherly treatment when the "State" is the applicant praying for condonation of delay. In fact, experience shows that on account of an impersonal machinery (no one in charge of the matter is directly hit or hurt by the judgment sought to be subjected to appeal) and the inherent bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note- making, file- pushing, and passing-on-the-buck ethos, delay on its part is less difficult to understand though more difficult to approve. In any event, the State which represents the collective cause of the community does not deserve a litigant non grata status. The Courts, therefore, have to be informed of the spirit and philosophy of the provision in the course of the interpretation of the expression "sufficient cause". So also the same approach has to be evidenced in its application to matters at hand with the end in view to do even-handed justice on merits in preference to the approach which scuttles a decision on merits.”

7.

Therefore respectfully follow the observations and ratio of the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court cited (supra) and find that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT (Appeals) by the assessee is supported with sufficient cause and therefore pragmatic approach should have been considered and the delay is condoned. Further considering facts, circumstances and principles of natural justice, the assessee shall be provided with one more opportunity of hearing to substantiate the case along with the evidences and information. Accordingly, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit the disputed issue to the file of the CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh and the assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and shall cooperate in submitting the information for early disposal of appeal. And the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

8.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13th October, 2026. PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Pune, Dated: 13th October, 2026 vr/- आदेशकीप्रतितितिअग्रेतिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अिीिार्थी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.

2.3.

The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. तिभागीय प्रतितिति, आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, “SMC” बेंच, नागपूर / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Nagpur. गार्डफ़ाइि / Guard File. 5. ////

आदेशािुसार / BY ORDER, Vukkem Rambabu Rambabu Date: 2026.10.13 17:50:21 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →