RUHI CHILDREN HAPPY SCHOOL SOCIETY,JODHPUR vs. ITO (E), JODHPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 153/JODH/2026Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur27 October 2026AY 2015-165 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found considerable cogency in the submissions made by the appellant. It held that in order to achieve the object of justice and ensure disposal of issues on their merits, the delay in filing the appeal should have been condoned. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) to the extent challenged. The matter was remitted back to the file of the learned CIT(E) with a direction to examine the issue afresh and decide it in accordance with the law. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the proceedings and furnish all relevant details and evidence. The Tribunal noted that the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ruhi Children Happy School Society, filed an appeal against an order dated January 6, 2026, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The CIT(A) had treated the assessee's appeal as not admitted. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) erroneously violated the principle of natural justice by declining to condone the delay in filing the appeal, which was neither intentional nor deliberate and had sufficient cause. The assessee also explained that the delay was partly due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent extension of limitation periods by the Supreme Court. The dispute pertains to the assessment year 2015-16.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in violating the principle of natural justice by declining to condone the delay in filing the appeal, and whether the delay was occasioned by a sufficient cause, as contemplated under the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) wrongly declined to condone the delay. The delay was not intentional or deliberate and had sufficient cause. The assessee cited the Supreme Court's order in Suo Moto Writ (Civil) No. 3/2020 (In Re Cognizance for extension of limitation) which extended limitation periods due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The assessee also relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition versus Mst. Katiji (1987 taxmann.com 1072(SC)), emphasizing that the power to condone delay is to enable substantial justice and the expression 'sufficient cause' is elastic enough to subserve the ends of justice. The assessee also mentioned a prior rectification application that was rejected, leading to the decision to file an appeal. Revenue's Contentions: The learned DR relied upon the orders of both lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Jain, Advocate (Virtually)
For Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam (Virtually)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SMT ANNAPURNA GUPTA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 153/Jodh/2026 (Assessment Year – 2015-16) RUHI CHILDREN HAPPY SCHOOL ITO EXEMPTION SOCIETY Jodhpur Maan Ji Hatha, Paota B Road, Jodhpur-342001 PAN No. AABAR 9005 Q Assessee by Shri Rajendra Jain, Advocate (Virtually) Revenue by Ms. Alka Gautam (Virtually) Date of Hearing 17 / 09 / 2026. Date of Pronouncement 27 / 10 / 2026. ORDER PER SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER The aforetitled appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 06th January 2026 passed by Office of Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, Addl/JCIT (A)-4, Delhi [for the sake of convenience, hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)], by which appeal of assessee was treated as not admitted.

2.

Heard rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record. 3. Reiterating the grounds of appeal, the Learned AR submitted that the Learned CIT(A) erroneously violated the principle of natural justice while passing

2 ITA No. 153/Jodh/2026 Asst. Year: 2015-16 the impugned order and declined to condone the delay in filing the appeal, whereas the Learned CIT(A) ought to have condone the delay in question. It Is also submitted that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate and that the appellant had sufficient cause for the delay. 4. The learned DR, on the other hand, relied upon the orders of the both lower authorities. 5. Further submitted by the Ld. AR that on 28-02-2018, the CPC processed the return u/s 143(1) of the Act, while processing the same, due to some technical or any other reason, the Learned AO disallowed the exemption claimed by appellant, for which the appellant filed the rectification application and was under bonafide belief regarding rectification the mistake and allowed the claim of deduction, but same had rejected vide order dated 30-12-2019, which was received by appellant on 20-01-2020. Also submitted that, the legal counsel advised to file appeal against both orders passed by CPC u/s 143(1) and u/s 154 of the Act. It is also submitted that , the whole world was put down to its knees to the outbreak of the COVID 19 pandemic in the beginning of 2020. The Learned AR referred the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Suo Moto Writ (Civil) No. 3/2020, In Re Cognizance for extension of limitation, extended from 15-03-2020

3 ITA No. 153/Jodh/2026 Asst. Year: 2015-16 till further order and directed that the period from 15-03-2020 till 28-02-2022 shall stand for the purpose of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi- judicial proceedings. Also relied upon, the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of 1987 taxmann.com 1072(SC), Collector, Land Acquisition versus Mst. Katiji, in which held that the legislature has conferred the power to condone delay, in order to enable the court to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on “merits” and the expression “sufficient cause” employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice and there is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. 6. On the basis of fact situation of the case mentioned hereinbefore and following binding judicial precedent cited as above, in order to achieve object of justice and to ensure disposal of issues on its merits alone, we find considerable cogency in the submissions on behalf of the appellant and accordingly, set aside the impugned order to the extent challenged before us and the matter is remit back to the file of the learned CIT(E) with a direction to examine the issue afresh

4 ITA No. 153/Jodh/2026 Asst. Year: 2015-16 and decide in accordance of law, after affording reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard to the assessee and simultaneously the assessee is also cautioned to fully cooperate with the proceedings without demur and furnish all relevant details/evidences as may be called for by the CIT(E). 7. Consequently, this appeal is hereby allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above. Order pronounced in Open Court on 27/10/2026

Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SUDHIR PAREEK) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 27/10/ 2026. Nimisha, Sr. PS

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →