EWA EMPOWERED WOMENS ASSOCIATION,DELHI vs. WARD EXEMPT 1(1), DELHI

आदेश /O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

• “That the appellant has filed the accompanying appeal against the order passed under section 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B) of the Act by the [CIT(E)], dated June 21, 2024. The aforesaid order was not received by the appellant on time due to some technical issue on recipient’s email. • That the appeal ought to have been filed on or before August 20, 2024, but due to the reasons explained below, there has been a delay of 333 days in filing the said appeal. a) The impugned order passed by CIT(Exemption) dated June 21, 2024, was not received by the appellant on time. Delay in receiving the impugned order leads to a delay in filling the appeal before Hon’ble ITAT. b) Further, there was delay due to some administrative lapses. The appellant could not get the timely and accurate advice from the then tax consultant. The appellant was in the process of changing the tax consultant which leads to delay in filling the aforementioned appeal before the Hon’ble ITAT. • The appellant hereby would like to explain that delay in filling the appeal before the Hon’ble ITAT was not intentional. There was no malafide or deliberate intention on the part of the appellant in filing the appeal with a delay of 333 days. The appellant has acted diligently, and delay was not due to the negligence on the part of the appellant. Had the above reasons were not incurred the appeal may have been filed on before the due date i.e. August 20, 2024. The delay occurred due to administrative reasons i.e. an untimely and inaccurate advice made by the tax consultant post receiving of impugned order. • The appellant submits that the appeal raises important questions of fact and law and has merits. The delay, if not condoned, would cause serious prejudice to the appellant and result in denial of substantial justice. • The Hon’ble Tribunal has the power to condone the delay under Section 253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, where sufficient cause is shown. • The Delhi High Court in case of CIT v. Suresh Kumar (2019) 417 ITR 287 (Delhi), ruled thattaxpayers can seek condonation of delay if they provide a valid and reasonable explanation forthe delay. The case emphasized that a fair opportunity should be given to taxpayers to contest theircases, even if they miss the filing deadline due to unforeseen circumstances. • Further, the Supreme Court in case of CIT v. Gujarat State Fertilizers (2018) 409 ITR 229(SC) ruled that condonation of delay is allowed in genuine cases where the delay was caused bycircumstances beyond the taxpayer’s control. • The appellant, therefore, humbly prays that this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to: i. Condone the delay of 333 days in filing the appeal; and ii. Pass such other order as deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.”