OXFORD SIKSHA SAMITI ,BHOPAL vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, GWALIOR
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA
Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 156 & 157/Agr/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20
Oxford Shiksha Samiti, Vs. Income-tax Officer, 96, Chitragupt Nagar, Kotra (Exemption), Gwalior. Sultana, Bhopal. PAN : AAAAO3353R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Anurag Sinha, Advocate Department by Sh. Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR Date of hearing 22.05.2025 Date of pronouncement 16.06.2025
ORDER Per:Sunil Kumar Singh, Judicial Member: These two appeals have been preferred by the assessee against two separate impugned orders both dated 27.01.2025 passed in Appeals No. NFAC/2017-18/10265629 and NFAC/2018-19/10265630 by the Ld.
Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20 respectively, wherein the ld.
CIT(Appeals) has dismissed both the first appeals of assessee as barred by limitation upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for condonation of delay of 820 and 873 days.
ITA No.156 & 157/Agr/2025
At the very outset, learned representative for the assessee has
submitted that the learned first appellate authority has not condoned the
delay of 820 days and 873 days respectively in filing the first appeals
before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Learned AR has submitted that the first
appeals were instituted on 28.07.2023 and 29.07.2023 against the orders
u/s. 143(1) of the Act dated 29.03.2021 and 05.02.2021 respectively.
Learned AR has further submitted that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has just ignored
the directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, as the major part of duration of
delay overlaps the period of global pandemic Covid-19. Prayed to set aside
both the impugned orders and restore the matters back to the ld.
CIT(Appeals) for deciding on merits after affording sufficient opportunity to
the assessee.
Learned DR has submitted that no sufficient cause was shown by the
assessee to condone the delay of more than two years in filing the appeals
before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Ld. DR has accordingly supported the
impugned order.
Perusal of both the impugned orders shows that common reason for
the delay was raised by the assessee for both the assessment years 2018-
19 and 2019-20. For the sake of convenience, relevant part of para 5.1.1 of
the impugned order dated 27.01.2025 assailed in ITA No. 156/Agr/2025 is
reiterated as under : 2 | P a g e
ITA No.156 & 157/Agr/2025
"………Due to Covid-19, intimation regarding this demand for A.Y 2018-19 is overlooked. Because of this we did not reply for the same. Here with while opening e-filing compliance portal we see outstanding demand for A.Y 2018-19 after that we will file an appeal regarding the same. So, Kindly allow the delay in filing of Appeal because of the issue specified above…….."
It is pertinent to mention that both the first appeals were instituted on
28.07.2023 and 29.07.2023 against the orders u/s. 143(1) of the Act dated
29.03.2021 and 05.02.2021 respectively. The limitation period for filing an
appeal before learned CIT(A) u/s. 249(2) of the Act is 30 days. However
section 249(3) of the Act empowers the first appellate authority to condone
the delay if satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not
presenting it within that period. In the instant case, learned CIT(A) was not
satisfied to condone the said delay in filing the first appeals.
It is true that there is huge delay of 820 days and 873 days in filing
each of the first appeals before ld. CIT(Appeals) respectively. We, however,
take judicial notice of the fact that most of the duration of delay caused in
filing first appeals before Ld. CIT (A) overlaps the period of spread of global
pandemic COVID-19. This fact has also been taken care of by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Misc. app. No. 21/2022 in Misc. app No. 665/2021 in
suo-moto W.P(c) No. 3/2020 in civil original jurisdiction and in re
cognizance of extension of limitation with miscellaneous application No.
29/2022, in miscellaneous application No. 655/2021 in suo-moto petition(c)
3 | P a g e
ITA No.156 & 157/Agr/2025
no. 03/2020 and vide para 5(1) of its order dated 10.01.2022 directed that
its order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the
subsequent order dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is
directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand
excluded for the purpose of limitation as may be prescribed under any
general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi judicial proceedings
after exclusion of the aforesaid duration. Therefore, substantial part of the
delay in filing the first appeals before ld. CIT(Appeals) gets condoned in
view of the Hon’ble Apex Court directions.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sambhaji and Ors V Gangabai and Ors,
Civil Appeal no. 6731/2008 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 14562 of 2006) vide
judgment dated 20.11.2008, has held that the object of prescribing
procedure is to advance the cause of justice. In an adversial justice system,
no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the
process of justice dispensation. Unless compelled by express and specific
language of the statute, the procedural enactment ought not to be
construed in a manner which would leave the court helpless to meet extra
ordinary situations in the ends of justice. Justice is the goal of
jurisprudence. Procedural law is always subservient to and is in aid to
justice. Any interpretation which eludes or frustrates the recipient of justice
is not to be followed. Processual law is not to be tyrant but a servant, not an 4 | P a g e
ITA No.156 & 157/Agr/2025
obstruction but an aid to justice. A procedural prescription is the handmaid
and not the mistress, lubricant, not a resistance in the administration of
justice.
In the totality of facts and circumstances and going by the decision of
Hon’ble Supreme Court, the reasons assigned for condonation of delay
seem to be sufficient. The said delay is accordingly condoned in the
interest of justice.
In the result, both the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders
each dated 27.01.2025 are set aside. The delay in filing the first appeals
before first appellant authority i.e learned CIT(A) stands condoned as
stated above. We restore the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) for
passing orders afresh on merit in accordance with law. Needless to say that
the first appellate authority shall ensure the substantial compliance of the
principles of natural justice.
Order pronounced in the open court on 16.06.2025.
Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 16.06.2025 *aks/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra
5 | P a g e
