Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Shri Govind Guru University, filed an appeal against an order that refused to condone a delay of over two years in filing a prior appeal. The initial appeal was against an intimation under Section 143(1) where exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) was denied.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a 'sufficient cause' for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal, as required by Section 249(3) of the Act. The delay was considered substantial and demonstrated a lack of due care, thus the appeal was dismissed.
Key Issues
Whether the appellant has provided sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal, and if the appeal is maintainable given the delay.
Sections Cited
143(1), 10(23C)(iiiab), 249(3), 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH
Before: DR. BRR Kumar & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar
ITA No: 610/Ahd/2025 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Shri Govind Guru The Dy.CIT, University Circle-2, Exemption, Vinzol, Kankanpur, Vs Ahmedabad Godhara, Godhara-388713 Gujarat PAN: AAAJS5763J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented: Adjournment Application filed Revenue Represented: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 02-06-2025 Date of pronouncement : 04-06-2025 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against the appellate order dated 24.02.2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur refusing to condone the delay of more than two years in filing the above appeal as against the intimation passed u/s. 143(1) of the I.T. Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2021-22.
A.Y. 2021-22 Page No 2 Shri Govind Guru University vs. DCIT
Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a University established and controlled by Government of Gujarat. For the Asst. Year 2021-22, assessee filed its Return of Income declaring Nil income. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 wherein the claim of exemption u/s. 10(23C)(iiiab) was denied to the assessee and treated the income taxable in the hands of the assessee. Assessee has not filed an appeal against the intimation. However when recovery proceedings were initiated, the assessee filed an appeal against the intimation with the delay of more than two years. The assessee claimed that the University is coordinating with 286 colleges affiliated with it and its office was shifted to a new place at a small village wherein postal delivers remaining undelivered. Further the email addresses and mobile numbers of earlier officers were not changed in the Income Tax Portal, the same were changed on 14-02-2025. The staff of the University were only five persons which include Vice Chancellor, Registrar, Examination-in-Charge, Deputy Accountant and Assistant, as the University were coordinating with 286 colleges affiliated with the University, hence could not concentrate on the Income Tax Affairs. Therefore requested to condone the delay of more than two years. The same was considered by the Ld. CIT(A) and found that no sufficient cause was made out by the assessee, thereby dismissed the appeal by observing as follows: “5. The facts of the case and the grounds raised
by the appellant have been considered carefully. There is a substantial delay in the filing of appeal for which no sufficient reason was given by the appellant. The appellant has failed to justify the in ordinate delay in filing appeal. From the factual position which emerges it appears that a conscious and considered decision was taken by the assessee at the relevant point of time for not filing of appeal against the impugned order. It is well-settled law that a distinction must be A.Y. 2021-22 Page No 3. Shri Govind Guru University vs. DCIT made between a case where the delay is inordinate and where the delay is of few days only. The inordinate delay in the instant case clearly demonstrates that this appeal was not prosecuted with due care. The expression 'sufficient cause' is not defined, but it means a cause which is beyond the control of the party. For invoking the aid of the section any cause which prevents a person approaching the POs within time is considered sufficient cause. In doing so, it is the test of reasonable man in normal circumstances which has to be applied. The test whether or not a cause is sufficient is to see whether it could have been avoided by the party by the exercise of due care and attention. In other words, whether it is bona fide cause, inasmuch as nothing shall be deemed to be done bona fide or in good faith which is not done with due care and attention. What may be sufficient cause in one case may be otherwise in another. What is of essence is whether it was an act of prudent or reasonable man. The term sufficient cause means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner but must had acted diligently and not remained in active. Reliance is placed on the judgement on Hon'ble High Court in the case of M Sri Nivasulu vs ACIT(TS-817-HC-2023(MAD) dated 21.12.2023. The appellant has failed to justify the inordinate delay in filing appeal. From the factual position which emerges it appears that a conscious and considered decision was taken by the assessee at the relevant point of time for not filing of appeal against the Impugned order. It is well-settled law that a distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and where the delay is of few days only. The inordinate delay in the instant case clearly demonstrates that this appeal was not prosecuted with due care. Reliance is placed on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajneesh Kumar and Anr. Vs Ved Prakash dated 24/11/2024 wherein the apex court has held that negligence or carelessness of lawyer can't be ground to condone in ordinate delay. On the issue of a routine delay and an inordinate delay, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vedabhai alias Vaijayantabai Baburao Patil vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil [2002] reported in 122 Taxman 114, has made a distinction between delays that are trivial and cases where inordinately large delays had occurred. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that the cases of trivial delays have to be liberally considered, however the cases of inordinate delays have to be approached cautiously. The relevant portion of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is reproduced as under. "In exercising discretion, under section 5 of the Limitation Act the courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case, the A.Y. 2021-22 Page No 4 Shri Govind Guru University vs. DCIT consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor so the case calls for a more cautious approach but in the latter case no such consideration may arise and such a case deserves a liberal approach. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in this regard." In view of the above detailed discussion, it is held that the appellant has no "sufficient cause" in terms of section 249(3) of the Act, for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed period. It is well-settled law that an appellant is not entitled to the condonation as a matter of right. For an appellant to succeed, the existence of sufficient cause is sine qua non and a condition precedent. It is manifestly evident that this ingredient is woefully lacking in this belated appeal filed by the appellant. Thus, the delay in filing the appeal by the appellant, is not considered as sufficient cause and delay is therefore, not condoned. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without any discussion on merits or on any other aspect. Considering the above discussion and facts, the appeal filed is not in conformity with the provisions of Sec 249(2) of the Act, and there is no sufficient cause for condonation of the delay in filing of the appeal, the present appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed.”
Aggrieved against the same, the assessee is in appeal before us raising the following Grounds of Appeal:
1. The grounds of appeal mentioned hereunder are without prejudice to each other.
2. The appeal order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeal), Udaipur is bad in law and deserves to be quashed.
3. In Facts and in circumstances of the case Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeal), Udaipur has grossly erred while ignoring Exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab) and treated as Taxable Income of Rs.23,66,93,959/-.
4. The said whole amount added as taxable Income of Rs.23,66,93,959/- is bad in Law and disserves to be quashed.
5. Looking to the opportunity for representing the defense your appellant preferred an appeal.
A.Y. 2021-22 Page No 5 Shri Govind Guru University vs. DCIT
6. The appellant craves, leave to add alter amend or withdraw any one or more grounds of appeal
4. None appeared on behalf of the assessee and an adjournment letter sought for with the following reasons:
Most respectfully an adjournment is requested for the hearing which is scheduled on 02nd June 2025 at 10.30 A.M. for the following reason; i. We being Government of Gujarat University incorporated by special Gazette, we have to follow Government norms for any appointment; ii. We were in the process of appointing Authorized Representative (A.R.) through resolution in the committee headed by Vice-Chancellor; iii. Between time after filing appeal before your Honorable office and hearing notice received i.e. 24th March 2025 to 13th May 2025 University's Vice-Chancellor was transferred. Hence A.R. is not identified and is not appointed; In the given circumstances we request your honorable office to grant an adjournment please. Thanking you in anticipation; For, Shri Guru Govind University Anil Savjibhai Solanki (Registrar) 4.1. This adjournment letter is wrongly dated 31-07-2025. The assessee claims that they could not appoint Authorized Representative since a resolution be passed in the committee headed by Vice Chancellor of the University. On verification through the website, it is found that Prof. Pratapsinh Chauhan was In-charge Vice Chancellor between 12-03-2025 to 30-04-2025 and it is thereafter Prof. Haribhai R. Kataria from 01-05-2025 onwards. It is further found that Prof. Pratabsinh Chauhan was the Vice Chancellor from 02-03-2019 to 01-03-2022 and 02-03-2022 to 01- A.Y. 2021-22 Page No 6 Shri Govind Guru University vs. DCIT 03-2025. Whereas the present appeal filed by the assessee on 24- 03-2025, whereas incharge Vice Chancellor was very much available. Further the assesse has not produced before us the copy of exemptions provided u/s. 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act. In the absence of the same, there is clear negligence on the part of the Assessee University in not complying to the statutory compliances and details under the provisions of law.
For the above reasons, the appeal filed by the Assessee Trust is hereby dismissed in limine.
Order pronounced in the open court on 04-06-2025 Sd/- Sd/- (DR. BRR KUMAR) (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 04/06/2025 आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से,
उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद