C R MEMORIAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,REWARI V. ITO (EXEMPTION), ROHTAK

ITA 1502/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals filed by M/s C R Memorial Education Society against the orders of the CIT(A), Pune, for the Assessment Years 2020-21 and 2021-22. The appeals were initially dismissed by the CIT(A) due to delays of 648 days and 407 days, respectively. The assessee argued that the delays were unintentional and occurred because they were unaware of the assessment orders until notified about a recovery demand under section 221 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal considered the circumstances of the delays, including the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and decided to condone the delays, emphasizing the importance of substantial justice over technicalities.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 312921 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs. Indian Express (Madurai) (P) Ltd., Ram Nath Sao vs Gobardhan Sao and Others
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR DHANESTA
• Assessee Lawyers: ANKIT KUMAR
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Reasonable cause; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 246

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1501/Del/2024 [Assessment Year: 2020-21] ITA No.1502/Del/2024 [Assessment Year: 2021-22] M/s C R Memorial Education Society, C R Bhartiya Vidhya Mandir Sr. Sec. School, P.O.Dharan, Vill-Balawas Jat Bawal, Rewari-123401 Haryana. Vs Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Aayakar Bhawan, Rohtak-124001. PAN-AAAJC44M Assessee Revenue Assessee by Shri Ankit Kumar, Adv. Revenue by Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr, Dr Date of Hearing 24.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement 30.04.2025 ORDER PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM, These two appeals are filed by the assessee against the orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Pune [CIT(A), in short] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ in short) dt. 15.02.2024 for Assessment Years 2020-21 and 2021-22 respectively. 2. At the outset from the perusal of appellate orders for both the years, it is seen that appeals of the assessee were not admitted for delay of 648 days in AY 2020-21 and of 407 days in AY 2021-22 in filing the appeals before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine on limitations by rejecting the delay condonation petition filed by the assessee by observing that there was no sufficient and reasonable cause stated by the assessee for delay. 2 ITA Nos.1501 & 1502/Del/2024 CR Memorial Education Society Vs. ITO(E) 3. Before us, It was submitted by ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay in filing appeal against the assessment order. The CPC has passed the orders u/s 143(1) which were not in the knowledge of the assessee, and only when the assessee received notice u/s 221 of the Act for the recovery of demand, it had come to its knowledge about such order and thereafter the appeal was filed for respective assessment year. Before ld. CIT(A) assessee has made following prayer for condonation of delay in filing the appeal: \"1. The captioned appeal is being filed by the appellant against the order of Ld. CPC, Bangalore passed under section 143(1) of the Act vide order dated 24.12.2021 which was never served upon the appellant. The appellant had received the notice u/s 221 of the act on 28.10.23 thereafter the appellant appeared before the Ld. AO ITO (E), Rohtak, who told that demand had been raised by the CPC and you need to file the appeal and the assessee filed the instant appeal now. Thus, the appeal being filed now is within time, but if still the same is considered as late, the same may kindly be condoned as the delay was neither deliberate nor willful but occured due to reasons mentioned herein above. 2. It is submitted that, the delay so occurred in filing the instant appeal is prayed to be condoned in view circumstances mentioned herein above. It is thus prayed, that, delay in filing of the instant appeal may kindly be condoned in view of position explained above in the interest of natural justice and in view of the provision contained in section 246 of the Act. 3. It is respectfully submitted that there was a plausible reason for the delay in filing of appeal, which has been caused due to the reasons beyond the control of the applicant. It is evident that instant delay was not caused on account of laches, malafide intention and gross negligence on the part of the applicant/appellant. Thus, since the circumstances stated above constitute sufficient cause, the appellant prays that delay in filing of appeal be condoned. The submission of the appellant is that technical considerations cannot and should not act as bar to the cause of substantial justice. In the instant case, the explanation tendered by the appellant neither is based on malafide considerations and, nor is a part of dilatory tactics, therefore the delay in filing of appeals deserves to be condoned. It is submitted that proceedings under Income Tax Act' 1961 are not adversary proceedings as has been held by the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Indian Express 3 ITA Nos.1501 & 1502/Del/2024 CR Memorial Education Society Vs. ITO(E) (Madurai) (P) Ltd. reported in 140 /TR 705, 722. Therefore, in the respectful submission of the appellant, where an assessee can satisfy the Court that he did not file an appeal within the time provided under the law, the Court should be liberal in condoning the delay as no taxes can be levied without the authority of law. 4. It is submitted that, the Apex Court in the case of Ram. Nath Sao vs Gobardhan Sao and Others reported in (2002) AIR 1201 held as under: \"Thus it becomes plain that the expression \"sufficient cause\" within the meaning of Section 5 of the Act or Order 22 Rule 9 of the Code or any other similar provision should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fides is imputable to a party. In a particular case whether explanation furnished would constitute \"sufficient cause\" or not will be dependent upon facts of each case. There cannot be a straitjacket formula for accepting or rejecting explanation furnished for the delay caused in taking steps. But one thing is clear that the courts should not proceed with the tendency of finding fault with the cause shown and reject the petition by a slipshod order in over-jubilation of disposal drive. Acceptance of explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal, an exception, more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fides can be imputed to the defaulting party. On the other hand, while considering the matter the courts should not lose sight of the fact that by not taking steps within the time prescribed a valuable right has accrued to the other party which should not be lightly defeated by condoning delay in a routine-like manner. However, by taking a pedantic and hyper technical view of the matter the explanation furnished should not be rejected when stakes are high and/or arguable points of facts and law are involved in the case, causing enormous loss and irreparable injury to the party against whom the lis terminates, either by default or inaction and defeating valuable right of such a party to have the decision on merit. While considering the matter, courts have to strike a balance between resultant effect of the order it is going to pass upon the parties either way.\" [Emphasis Supplied] 5. It is the submission of the appellant that in case the appeal is not heard on merits, it would cause enormous loss and, irreparable injury, particularly since additions made and demand raised is high. 6. Therefore, it is most respectfully prayed that delay in filing of the instant appeal may kindly be condoned and, appellant be provided fair, meaningful and proper opportunity to establish that the income returned is in accordance with law, and, the adverse observations so recorded in the impugned order are not, untenable.\" 4 ITA Nos.1501 & 1502/Del/2024 CR Memorial Education Society Vs. ITO(E) 4. Ld. Sr. DR did not raised any serious objections towards the condonation of delay. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. Adverting to the facts of the present case, it is seen that there is a delay of 648 days in filing the appeal for AY 2021-21 and delay of 407 days on filing the appeal for AY 2021-22. The assessee would not gain anything by filing the appeal late. There is no mala fide imputable to the assessee. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down the plea and to shut the doors against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fide or it is not put-forth as a part of dilatory strategy, the Courts must utmost consideration to such litigant. It is also a matter of fact that that while calculating the period of delay for AY 2021-21, ld. CIT(A) has not excluded the period fallen under Corona-19 for which the hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 dt. 10.01.2022 has directed to exclude the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022. If the said period is excluded, the delay in AY 2020-21 would me much lessor. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and in the larger interest of justice, we are of the opinion that the delay in filing the appeals before eld. CIT(A) deserves to be condoned. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing both the appeals before the learned CIT(A) and restore the matters back to the ld. CIT(A), who will decide both the appeals of the assessee on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The grounds of appeal No. 1 to 2.4 of both the appeals are allowed. 6. Since we have condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the file of CIT(A), thus other grounds of appeal taken on the merits are become academic and thus not adjudicated. 5 ITA Nos.1501 & 1502/Del/2024 CR Memorial Education Society Vs. ITO(E) 7. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos. 1501/Del/2025 and 1502/Del/2024 stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 30.04.2025. oSd/- Sd/- [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] [MANISH AGARWAL] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 30.04.2025. PK/Sr. Ps Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI "