"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM MA No. 104/Coch/2025 (Arising out of ITA No. 661/Coch/2023) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Bethany Navajeevan Province .......... Applicant Privoncial Ashram, Nalanchira Post Thiruvananthapuram 695015 [PAN: AAATB7341M] vs. ACIT (Exemption), Thiruvananthapuram .......... Respondent Applicant by: Shri P.V.. Chacko, CA Respondent by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 31.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 01.12.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM The present Miscellaneous Application (MA) is filed by the assessee seeking recall of the order passed by this Tribunal in ITA No. 661/Coch/2023 dated 30.05.2024 for assessment year (AY) 2017-18. 2. It is stated that the appellant had filed the present MA seeking recall of the order passed by this Tribunal on the ground that there was a delay of only 4 days as against 125 days as noted by this Tribunal and, therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal should be recalled. Printed from counselvise.com 2 MA No. 104/Coch/2025 Bethany Navajeevan Provices 3. We had carefully perused the averments made in the MA. We find from the record that the Registry had notified the delay of 125 days to the petitioner and the petitioner had submitted the condonation petition seeking condonation of only 4 days. The petitioner had neither cured the defect notified by the Registry nor amended the petition. Moreover, while considering the petition seeking condonation of delay, what matters is not the length of delay but sufficiency of the reasons for the delay. This Tribunal, while considering the petition for condonation of delay categorically held that the reasons given for the delay are too vague and general. There were no sufficient reasons for the delay followed the law laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ornate Traders V. ITO 312 ITR 193. Thus, the Tribunal had dealt with the condonation petition on merits and passed a reasoned order. The Tribunal in exercising the powers vested with it u/s. 254(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) cannot review the order passed on merits. Thus, we do not find any merit in the MA filed by the assessee. 3. In the result, the assessee’s miscellaneous application stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on the conclusion of the hearing. Sd/- Sd/- (ANIKESH BANERJEE) JUDICIAL MEMBER (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 1st December, 2025 n.p. Printed from counselvise.com 3 MA No. 104/Coch/2025 Bethany Navajeevan Provices Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT concerned 4. The Sr. DR, ITAT, Cochin 5. Guard File By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Cochin Printed from counselvise.com "