Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee society filed its return of income for AY 2018-19 declaring Nil income. The return was processed, determining income at Rs.1,88,15,759/- and raising a demand. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) after a delay of 1797 days, citing non-receipt of notice, tax consultant negligence, and COVID-19 pandemic. The CIT(A) refused to condone the delay, stating a lack of sufficient cause.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the delay occurred before the COVID-19 period and that the reasons provided were not cogent enough for condonation, referring to various Supreme Court judgments on limitation and sufficient cause. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to refuse condonation of delay.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was sufficiently caused to warrant condonation, and if the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 10 23C iiiab.
Sections Cited
Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, Section 10 23C iiiab, Section 253(5) of the Act, Section 3 of the Limitation Act, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, Section 143(1) of the Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH
O R D E R PER BIJYANANDA PRUSETH, AM:
These appeals filed by the assessee emanate from the orders passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act’) by the ADDL./JCIT (A)-7, Delhi [in short, “CIT(A)”], both dated 24.09.2025, for the assessment years (AY)
2018-19 and 2019-20. Since the facts are similar and the grounds are identical, with consent of both parties, the appeals were clubbed and heard together and a common order is passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. for AY 2018-19 is taken as the “lead” case.
The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in (AY 2018-19) are as under: 1 2018-19 & 2019-20 Uttar Bhartiya Education Society “1 Condonation refused without justification: The Ld. CITA erred in refusing to condone the delay in filing the first appeal despite a bona fide and reasonable explanation non-receipt of physical notices and reliance on professional advice, supported by affidavits and contemporaneous material. The delay deserves to be condoned and the appeal admitted for adjudication on merits.
2. Incorrect Quantification of Delay Supreme Court Limitation Extension. The Ld. CIT A erred in mechanically calculating the delay as 1,797 days. The Ld. CIT A failed to exclude the period covered by the Hon’ble Supreme Courts directions in Suo Motu Writ Petition Civil No. 3 of 2020 read with CBDT Circular No. 10/2021, which extended the limitation period for all judicial proceedings up to 28.02.2022, with a further 90-day grace period ending on 29.05.2022. Consequently, the delay should technically be counted only from 30.05.2022, reducing the delay to approximately 848 days.
3. Violation of natural justice: The order was passed without granting an effective opportunity of hearing, the order itself records Present for the appellant Not Applicable. The dismissal in limine violates audi alteram partem and is unsustainable.
4. Merits Section 10 23C iiiab: Without prejudice to above Grounds, the authorities below erred in taxing gross receipts and in denying exemption to a Government aided educational 4 institution that exists solely for educational purposes and is wholly/substantially financed by the Government. The Appellant is entitled to full exemption us 10 23C iiiab, the entire addition of Rs.1,88,15,759 deserves to be deleted.”
The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in (AY 2019-20) are as under:
“1. Condonation refused without justification. The Ld. CITA erred in refusing to condone the delay in filing the first appeal despite a bona fide and reasonable explanation non-receipt of physical notices and reliance on professional advice, supported by affidavits and contemporaneous material. The delay deserves to be condoned and the appeal admitted for adjudication on merits.
Incorrect Quantification of Delay Supreme Court Limitation Extension. The Ld. CIT A materially erred in law by calculating the delay as 1,296 days. The Assessment Order was passed on 08.02.2021, and the normal limitation period expired in March 2021, 2018-19 & 2019-20 Uttar Bhartiya Education Society which falls squarely within the period covered by the Honble Supreme Court directions in Suo Motu Writ Petition Civil No. 3 of 2020. The Honble Apex Court directed that for any limitation expiring between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022, the limitation shall stand extended to 29.05.2022. Consequently, the actionable delay should only be calculated from 30.05.2022, substantially reducing the delay to approximately 848 days. The Ld. CIT A failure to apply this binding apex court ruling renders the dismissal unsustainable.
Violation of natural justice: The order was passed without granting an effective opportunity of hearing, the order itself records Present for the appellant Not Applicable. The dismissal in limine violates audi alteram partem and is unsustainable.
Non admission of crucial evidence: The Ld. CIT A erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the material evidence 4 on record, specifically the Government Grant Orders and Salary Grant records, which conclusively establish that the Appellant is a fully aided Government school. [ 5. Merits Section 10 23C mab: Without prejudice to above Grounds, the authorities below erred in taxing gross receipts and in denying exemption to a Government aided educational 5 institution that exists solely for educational purposes and is wholly/substantially financed by the Government. The Appellant is entitled to full exemption us 10 23C iiiab, the entire addition of Rs. 1,94,28,963 deserves to be deleted.”
The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee society filed its return of income for AY 2018-19 on 31.08.2018 declaring total income of Rs. Nil. The return was processed u/s 143(1) on 26.09.2019 determining total income at Rs.1,88,15,759/- and raising a demand of Rs.82,19,923/-. Aggrieved by the said intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act by the DCIT (CPC), Bangalore, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) on 24.09.2024. Thus, the appeal was not filed within 30 days from the date of the impugned order, which expired on 25.10.2019. The 2018-19 & 2019-20 Uttar Bhartiya Education Society CIT(A) noted that there was a delay of 1797 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) has pasted the screenshot at page 3 of the appellate order to show that the “Date of the service of Order/Notice of Demand” was “26-Sep- 2019”. The appellant had submitted that he did not receive notice by post at its address and it was not tech savvy to check the notice/order in the income-tax portal or e-mail. The tax consultant did not provide guidance to respond to the notices. Subsequently, he received penalty order by hand delivery on 06.03.2024.
The said order was received after the department contacted his daughter-in-law on her mobile phone. The trustee does not have enough qualification or knowledge to check and understand and respond to the notices from the income- tax portal. Due to negligence of the tax consultant, the assessee is facing problem and hence, it requested to condone the delay. The CIT(A) considered the prayer of the assessee and observed that there is statutory limit for filing the appeal and the invocation of the power to condone any delay is possible only if there is “sufficient cause.” Ignorance of law cannot be taken as an excuse. The onus was on the appellant to keep track of the e-mail and proceedings in its case. The unsubstantiated reason given by the appellant for the delay is not found to fall within the meaning of “sufficient cause.” The CIT(A) thereafter, relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ajay Dabra Vs. Pyare Lal dated 31.01.2023 which is reproduced at pages 6 and 7 of the appellate order. The 2018-19 & 2019-20 Uttar Bhartiya Education Society Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to its decision in case of Mohan Vikram Das Chela Vs. Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh and Others (SC) and Basawaij Raj and another Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, wherein the Hon’ble Court observed that no Court could be justified in condoning such inordinate delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time, condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of statutory provisions. In view of the above facts and the decisions cited supra, the CIT(A) did not condone the delay in filing the appeal and hence, did not admit the appeal.
Further aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal. The Ld. AR of the assessee has filed paper-book and an affidavit of the trustee of the assessee society requesting for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. In the affidavit, it is stated that the trust has been carrying on charitable activities for imparting education. It is submitted that the income-tax matter was handled by M/s Ashok Bacche and Associates, CAs. The CPC did not allowed exemption because the CA failed to select the correct section under which the return should have been filed. It is submitted that there was outbreak of COVID- 19 pandemic around March 2020 and taking cognizance of the situation, the Government of India and the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed various orders extending the limitation period for filing appeals before various appellate
ITA No.7651/MUM/2025/AY 2018-19 & 2019-20 Uttar Bhartiya Education Society authorities. If such period is excluded, the delay would be 987 days. It is further submitted that after resumption of office of the assessee after COVID-19, need of filing appeal with CIT(A) slipped out of his mind and after realizing the mistake, he has filed the appeal after delay of 987 days. He further stated that the assessee has a strong case on merit. The Ld. AR has relied on CBT Circular No.10/2021 dated 25.05.2021; Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, decisions in cases of; Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others (167 ITR 471 SC); and Rotary Club of Bombay North Island Charitable Trust Vs. CPC, Bangalore, dated 26.11.2025. In view of the above, the Ld. AR requested that the delay may be condoned and the CIT(A) be directed to decide the case on merit.
On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR)
for the revenue supported the order of the CIT(A). He submitted that there was inordinate delay of 1797 days in filling appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee has not been able to establish “sufficient cause” for delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal.
We have heard both parties on this preliminary issue of condonation of delay. We have also deliberated on the decisions relied on by the ld. AR. There was a delay of 1797 days in filing appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld. AR submitted that the appellant did not receive the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act by post at 2018-19 & 2019-20 Uttar Bhartiya Education Society its address. The tax consultant also did not provide him proper guidance regarding filing of appeal before CIT(A). It was also submitted that there was COVID-19 pandemic due to which the Government of India and Hon’ble Supreme Court had extended the limitation period for filing of appeals. After excluding such period, there would be delay of 987 days. The Ld. AR has relied on the decision in case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji (Supra) and Rotary Club of India (supra).
Ongoing through the facts of the case and the material on record, we find that there is inordinate delay of 1797 days in filing appeal by the assessee before the ITAT. The time limit for filing appeal with CIT(A) expired on 25.10.2019 which was much before the COVID period which started from March 2020. The appellant has not been able to give any reason for not filing the appeal before the onset of COVID-19. Even if the assessee’s contention is accepted, still there was delay of 987 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The trustee himself has admitted that filing of appeal with CIT(A) had slipped out of his mind after resumption of the office of the appellant after COVID-19. He has not given any affidavit or supporting evidence that the CA did not advise him in taxation matter. It is clear from the facts discussed above that the assessee has not been able to give any cogent reason for such inordinate delay in filing appeal before ITAT. That the delay was purely due to the lack of advice from erstwhile CA, non-receipt of the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act, slip of mind to file appeal after COVID-19 etc.
2018-19 & 2019-20 Uttar Bhartiya Education Society could not be treated as a “sufficient cause” in terms of provisions of section 253(5) of the Act for the inordinate delay of 1797 days. The Ld. AR has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji (supra), which was pronounced on 19.02.1987. There was delay only 4 days in the said case. However, we find that in the subsequent decisions, namely, (i) P. K. Ramachandran vs State of Kerala & Anr. (1997) 7 SCC 556, (ii)
Pundik Jalam Patil vs. Executive Engineers, Jalgaon Medium Project, (2008) 17 SCC 448 and (iii) Basawaraj and Anr vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81, (iv) Pathapati Subba Reddy (dies) By L. Rs. & Ors. Vs The Special Deputy Collector (LA), SLP(C) No.31248 of 2018 (SC), dated 08.04.2024, it has been held by the Hon’ble Court that condonation of delay should not be granted only on the ground that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Basawaraj (supra) summarized the law on the subject issue by stating that where a case has been presented in the Court beyond limitation of time, the applicant has to explain as to what was the “sufficient cause” which means an adequate and enough reason, which prevented him to approach the Court within the limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bonafide on his part in the facts and circumstances 2018-19 & 2019-20 Uttar Bhartiya Education Society of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay.
We also find that in a subsequent decision pronounced on 28.04.2024, in the case of Pathapati Subba Reddy (dies) & Ors. vs. The Special Deputy Collector (LA), in SLP (Civil) No. 31248 of 2018 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to and discussed various decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court namely (i) Bhag Mal (Alias) Ram Bux & Ors vs. Munshi (Dead) by LRs & Ors (2007) 11 SCC 285 (SC), (ii)
Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji (supra) (iii) Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. (1962) 2 SCR 762, (iv) Maqbul Ahmad and Ors vs. Onkar Pratap Narain Singh and Ors, AIR 1935 PC 85 (v) Brijesh Kumar and Ors vs. State of Haryana and Ors. 2014 (4) SCALE 50 (vi) Lanka Venkateswarlu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors, (2011) 4 SCC 363 (vii) State of Jharkhand & Ors vs. Ashok Kumar Chokhani & Ors. AIR 2009 SC 1927 (viii) Basawaraj and Anr. (supra) and held as under:
“7. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the legal maxim “interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium” i.e. it is for the general welfare that a period of limitation be put to litigation. The object is to put an end to every legal remedy and to have a fixed period of life for every litigation as it is futile to keep any litigation or dispute pending indefinitely. Even public policy requires that there should be an end to the litigation otherwise it would be a dichotomy if the litigation is made immortal vis-a-vis the litigating parties i.e. human beings, who are mortals.”
It has also discussed the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji (supra) relied upon by the appellant, and held that the phrases “liberal approach”, 2018-19 & 2019-20 Uttar Bhartiya Education Society “justice-oriented approach” and “cause of advancement of substantial justice” cannot be employed to defeat the law of limitation. For ready reference of equality, the same is reproduced hereunder:
“16. …………….In Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Ors. vs. Katiji and Ors.2, this Court in advocating the liberal approach in condoning the delay for ‘sufficient cause’ held that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late; it is not necessary to explain every day’s delay in filing the appeal; and since sometimes refusal to condone delay may result in throwing out a meritorious matter, it is necessary in the interest of justice that cause of substantial justice should be allowed to prevail upon technical considerations and if the delay is not deliberate, it ought to be condoned. Notwithstanding the above, howsoever, liberal approach is adopted in condoning the delay, existence of ‘sufficient cause’ for not filing the appeal in time, is a condition precedent for exercising the discretionary power to condone the delay. The phrases ‘liberal approach’, ‘justice- (1987) 2 SCC 107 = AIR 1987 SC 1353 oriented approach’ and cause for the advancement of ‘substantial justice’ cannot be employed to defeat the law of limitation so as to allow stale matters or as a matter of fact dead matters to be revived and re-opened by taking aid of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.”
After discussion on various cases in its order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at Para 26, has summed up the law laid down by it as under:
“26. On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the law, as aforesaid, and the law laid down by this Court, it is evident that:
(i) Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself; (ii) A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed period of time; (iii) The provisions of the Limitation Act have to be construed differently, such as Section 3 has to be construed in a strict sense whereas Section 5 has to be construed liberally; (iv) In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal approach, justice- oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be kept in mind but the 2018-19 & 2019-20 Uttar Bhartiya Education Society same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section 3 of the Limitation Act; (v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence; (vi) Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it does not mean that others are also entitled to the same benefit if the court is not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal; (vii) Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay; and (viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to disregarding the statutory provision.”
The Hon'ble Supreme Court accordingly refused to interfere with the decision of the Hon'ble High Court refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal.
We also find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of H. Guruswamy & Ors. vs. A. Krishnaiah Since Deceased by LRS., in Civil Appeal No. 317 of 2025, dated 08.01.2025, has set aside the order of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in WP No.7220 of 2014 wherein the Hon’ble High Court allowed the Writ Petition by condoning the delay of about 6 years. The Hon’ble Supreme Court at para 13 observed as under:
‘13. We are at our wits end to understand why the High Court overlooked all the aforesaid aspects. What was the good reason for the High Court to ignore all this? Time and again, the Supreme Court has reminded the District judiciary as well the High courts that the concepts such as “liberal approach”, “Justice oriented 2018-19 & 2019-20 Uttar Bhartiya Education Society approach”, “substantial justice” should not be employed to frustrate or jettison the substantial law of limitation.’
In view of the above facts and respectfully following the authoritative precedents cited supra, we find no reason to condone the inordinate delay of 1797 days in filing appeal before the CIT(A) in absence of any sufficient cause. The CIT(A) has rightly declined to condone the delay and did not admit the appeal. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A), which we confirm. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Since delay in filing the appeal has not been condoned, it becomes academic in nature to discuss the merit of the case and hence, they are not required to be adjudicated.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
ITA No.7652/M/2025 (AY 2019-20)
Facts of the above appeal and grounds raised by the appellant are similar to those in (AY 2018-19) decided above. Following the reasons given therein, this appeal is also dismissed.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed.
Order is pronounced on 30.01.2026.
Sd/- Sd/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (BIJYANANDA PRUSETH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *Aniket Chand; Sr. PS 12 2018-19 & 2019-20 Uttar Bhartiya Education Society