SALEEM AND MUNIRA MERCHANT CHARITABLE FOUNDATION,THANE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 15(1)(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Per: Smt. Beena Pillai, J.M.:

& 2122/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2024-25 Saleem and Muinra Merchant Charitable Foundation The present appeals are filed by the assessee against orders dated 26/12/2024 passed by Ld.CIT(E), denying the registration u/s.12A and 80G of the Act.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

& 2122/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2024-25 Saleem and Muinra Merchant Charitable Foundation 3. From the above it is noted that, the reason that caused delay in filing appeal before this Tribunal was because the assessee awaiting legal advice and was not aware if assessee could file appeal against the impugned order. For this reason, the delay occurred and submitted that, there is no malafide intention attributable to the assessee in causing the delay in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. The Ld.AR relied on the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471.

3.1 On the contrary, the Ld.DR though vehemently opposed the condonation of delay was of the opinion that the issue should be decided on merits.

We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before this Tribunal.

& 2122/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2024-25 Saleem and Muinra Merchant Charitable Foundation “The Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on de 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. It is common knowledge that this court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that :

1. 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 out 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. ......................................................1.Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.” 4.2 Considering the submissions by both sides and respectfully following the observation by Hon’ble Supreme Court, we find it fit to condone the about 31 days delay caused in filing the present appeal as it is not attributable to the assessee. Accordingly delay in filing both the present appeals before this Tribunal stands condoned.

5.1 The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has amended its object clause and the same has been furnished with the ministry of corporate affairs. He thus submitted that, the assessee may be granted an opportunity of being heard before Ld.CIT(E) to substantiate its claim as there was violation of principle natural justice. 5.2 On the contrary, the Ld.DR relied on the orders passed by the authorities below.

We have perused submissions advance by both sides in the light of records placed before us.

In the result the both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes