IMAM AHMED RAZA EDUCATIONAL AND WELFARE TRUST,HAVERI V. CIT (EXEMPTION) BANGALORE, BANGALORE

ITA 411/BANG/2025

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals by the Imam Ahmed Raza Educational and Welfare Trust against the orders of the CIT (Exemptions), Bangalore, which rejected the Trust's applications for approval under section 80G(5)(iii) and registration under section 12(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Trust had initially filed applications in Form No. 10AB, which were later withdrawn. The Tribunal, after considering the circumstances and the legal provisions, dismissed both appeals on the grounds of non-maintainability, as the Trust had withdrawn its applications prior to the CIT's decisions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 314062 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2024-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and Ors. (167 ITR 471), People Education & Economic Development Society Vs/ ITO (100 ITD 87 (TM) (Chen)), CIT vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SRINANDINI DAS
• Assessee Lawyers: MAHAMAD RAFIQ KURADAGI; WAY OF
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Reasonable cause; Period of limitation

Judgement Text

"ITA Nos.395 & 411/Bang/2025 Imam Ahmed Raza Educational and Welfare Trust, Haveri IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 395 & 411/Bang/2025 Assessment Years: 2024-25 Imam Ahmed Raza Educational and Welfare Trust 109 Devi Hosur Village Venkatapur Dist. Haveri 581 110 Karnataka PAN NO : AABTI9990G Vs. CIT (Exemptions) Bangalore APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Mr. Mahamad Rafiq Kuradagi, A.R. Respondent by : Smt. Srinandini Das, D.R. Date of Hearing : 01.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 05.05.2025 O R D E R PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: These appeals at the instance of assessee are directed against the orders of ld. CIT (Exemptions), Bangalore both dated 25.7.2024 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2024- 25/1067010824(1) rejecting the application for approval u/s 80G(5)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 & vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2024-25/1067008194(1) rejecting the application for registration u/s 12(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since the issue in both these appeals is common, these are clubbed together, heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. At the outset, there is a delay of 149 days in filing both these appeals before this Tribunal. The ld. A.R. of the assessee also drew ITA Nos.395 & 411/Bang/2025 Imam Ahmed Raza Educational and Welfare Trust, Haveri Page 2 of 9 our attention on application for condonation of delay along with the affidavit in original sworn before the notary public on 19.03.2025 which are reproduced below for ease of reference and record: ITA Nos.395 & 411/Bang/2025 Imam Ahmed Raza Educational and Welfare Trust, Haveri Page 3 of 9 ITA Nos.395 & 411/Bang/2025 Imam Ahmed Raza Educational and Welfare Trust, Haveri Page 4 of 9 3. We have perused the details filed by the assessee by way of above affidavit to justify the delay and we are satisfied that there is sufficient cause without any malafide intention on the part of the assessee in filing the appeal belatedly before us. It is to be noted that u/s 253(5) of the Act, the Tribunal may admit the appeal filed beyond the period of limitation where it has established that there exists a sufficient cause on the part of the assessee for not presenting the appeals within the prescribed time. The explanation therefore, becomes relevant to determine whether the same reflect sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee in not filing this appeal within the prescribed time. 3.1 While considering a similar issue the Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and Ors. (167 ITR 471) laid down six principles. For the purpose of convenience, the principles laid down by the Apex Court are reproduced hereunder: (1) Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. (2) Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. (3) 'Every day's delay must be explained' does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational, commonsense and pragmatic manner. (4) When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a nondeliberate delay. (5) There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk. ITA Nos.395 & 411/Bang/2025 Imam Ahmed Raza Educational and Welfare Trust, Haveri Page 5 of 9 (6) It must be grasped that the judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. 3.2 When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have vested right for injustice being done because of nondeliberate delay. Therefore, we have to prefer substantial justice rather than technicality in deciding the issue. As observed by Apex Court, if the application of the assessee for condoning the delay is rejected, it would amount to legalize injustice on technical ground when the Tribunal is capable of removing injustice and to do justice. Therefore, this Tribunal is bound to remove the injustice by condoning the delay on technicalities. If the delay is not condoned, it would amount to legalizing an illegal order which would result in unjust enrichment on the part of the State by retaining the tax relatable thereto. Under the scheme of Constitution, the Government cannot retain even a single pie of the individual citizen as tax, when it is not authorized by an authority of law. Therefore, if we refuse to condone the delay, that would amount to legalize an illegal and unconstitutional order passed by the lower authority. 3.3 Further, in the case of People Education & Economic Development Society Vs/ ITO reported in 100 ITD 87 (TM) (Chen), wherein held that “when substantial justice and technical consultation are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of non-deliberate delay”. 3.4 The next question may arise whether delay was excessive or inordinate. There is no question of any excessive or inordinate when the reason stated by the assessee was a reasonable cause for not ITA Nos.395 & 411/Bang/2025 Imam Ahmed Raza Educational and Welfare Trust, Haveri Page 6 of 9 filing the appeal. We have to see the cause for the delay. When there was a reasonable cause, the period of delay may not be relevant factor. In fact, the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered the condonation of delay and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the Madras High Court condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. When compared to 21 years, 149 days cannot be considered to be inordinate or excessive. Furthermore, the Chennai Tribunal by majority opinion in the case of People Education and Economic Development Society (PEEDS) v. ITO (100 ITD 87) (Chennai) (TM) condoned more than six hundred days delay. Therefore, in our opinion, by preferring the substantial justice, the delay of 149 days for the AY 2024-25 for both the appeals have to be condoned and accordingly we condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 4. Now first, we take assesseee’s appeal in ITA No.395/Bang/2025 for adjudication. The assessee has raised various grounds of appeal. 5. Before us, the ld. A.R. of the assessee submitted that the assessee had withdrawn the application in Form No.10AB filed before CIT (Exemptions) for approval u/s 80G(5)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) and for this reason the ld. CIT(E) has rejected the application for approval u/s 80G(5) of the Act. Further the ld. AR submitted that since the assessee Trust is facing technical difficulties in filing the fresh application for approval/registration & therefore filed the present appeal before this Tribunal along with a condonation petition for seeking direction to the ld. CIT(E) to resolve the issues. ITA Nos.395 & 411/Bang/2025 Imam Ahmed Raza Educational and Welfare Trust, Haveri Page 7 of 9 6. The ld. DR on the other hand submitted that the appeal filed by the assessee is not maintainable as the assessee trust itself withdrew the application filed in form 10AB for approval u/s 80G(5) of the Act before the ld. CIT(E). 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. On going through the order of the ld. CIT(E), we observe that the ld. CIT (Exemptions) has rejected the application of the assessee with the following observations: “Assessee has withdrawn the application in Form 10AB filed for approval u/s 80G(5)(iii) of the Act. In view of the above, the Form 10AB dated 1.2.2024 for approval u/s 80G(5)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is hereby rejected.” 8. Keeping in view of the above, since the assessee trust had itself withdrawn the application for grant of approval u/s 80G(5)(iii) of the Act before the ld. CIT (Exemptions), therefore we are of the opinion that no cause of action arises to the assessee trust to prefer the present appeal before us. Accordingly we held that the present appeal is not maintainable and hence dismissed. 9. Now, we take up assesseee’s appeal in ITA No.411/Bang/2025 for the AY 2024-25. The assessee has raised various grounds of appeal. 10. At the outset, the ld. A.R. submitted that assessee had withdrawn the application in Form No.10AB filed before CIT (Exemptions) for registration u/s 12(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) and for this reason the ld. CIT(E) has rejected the application for registration u/s 12(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act. Further the ld. AR submitted that since the assessee Trust is facing technical difficulties in filing the fresh application for ITA Nos.395 & 411/Bang/2025 Imam Ahmed Raza Educational and Welfare Trust, Haveri Page 8 of 9 approval/registration & therefore filed the present appeal before this Tribunal along with a condonation petition for seeking direction to the ld. CIT(E) to resolve the issues & accept the fresh application of registration/approval. 10.1 The ld. DR on the other hand submitted that this appeal filed by the assessee is not maintainable as the assessee trust itself withdrew the application filed in form 10AB for registration u/s 12(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act. 11. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. We observe that the ld. CIT (Exemptions) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee with following observations: “Assessee has withdrawn the application in Form 10AB filed for approval u/s 12(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act. In view of the above, the Form 10AB dated 3.1.2024 for approval u/s 12(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is hereby rejected.” 11.1 Keeping in view of the above, since the assessee trust had itself withdrawn the application for grant of registration u/s 12(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act before the ld. CIT (Exemptions), therefore we are of the opinion that no cause of action arises to the assessee trust to prefer the present appeal before us. Accordingly, we held that the present appeal is not maintainable and hence dismissed. 12. In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are dismissed as not maintainable. Order pronounced in the open court on 5th May, 2025 Sd/- (Waseem Ahmed) Accountant Member Sd/- (Keshav Dubey) Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated 5th May, 2025. VG/SPS ITA Nos.395 & 411/Bang/2025 Imam Ahmed Raza Educational and Welfare Trust, Haveri Page 9 of 9 Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 5 Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore. "