SOCIETY FOR EDUCATION AND WELFARE AWARENESS,KANPUR V. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC BENGALURU, BENGALURU

ITA 516/LKW/2024

AI Insights

The case involves the Society for Education and Welfare Awareness, which appealed against the order of the CIT(A) that dismissed their appeal on the grounds of delay without considering the merits. The assessee had initially sought rectification under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act but later realized that an appeal to the CIT(A) was more appropriate. The Tribunal considered the circumstances under which the delay occurred and the efforts made by the assessee to rectify the situation through timely filing of a rectification application. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments and decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes and directing a re-examination of the case on its merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 826742 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 20-08-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Vishal Infraglobal Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, Chandra Goswami vs. ITO, Delhi, Subhash Malik vs. CIT, Meerut, Cheminor Drugs Ltd. vs. DCIT, Hyderabad, Prominent Builders & Investors (P) Ltd. vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Hemlata Verma vs. M/s ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another, M/s Model Exim vs. PCIT (Central), Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Ors., Anurag Rastogi vs. ITO
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRIR.R.N. SHUKLA
• Assessee Lawyers: SWARAN SINGH
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Reasonable cause; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW ‘B’ BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRISUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.516/LKW/2024 Assessment year:2019-20 Society for Education and Welfare Awareness, 1002, C-3, Eldico Garden, Dev Nagar, Kanpur PAN:AAAJS 1144D Vs. DCIT, CPC Bengaluru, Bengaluru (Appellant) (Respondent) O R D E R PER: ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, A.M. (A) This appeal vide I.T.A. No.516/Lkw/2024 has been filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2019-20 against impugned appellate order dated 24/06/2024(Appeal No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1065960585(1)of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai [“CIT(A)” for short]. (B) In this case, assessee’s returned income was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act whereby adjustment was made, making addition to the returned income. The assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the learned CIT(A) vide impugned appellate order dated 24.06.2024 whereby the assessee’s appeal was not admitted on limitation ground. Appellant by Shri Swaran Singh, CA Respondent by ShriR.R.N. Shukla, Addl. CIT, D.R. Printed from counselvise.com 2 The assessee’s appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case, as the delay in filing of the appeal was not condoned u/s. 249(3) of the Act by the learned CIT(A). Present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 24.06.2024 of ITA No. 516/Lkw/2024. The grounds of appeal are as under: “1 That the L.d. Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai has erred in law and on facts in not accepting the Application of Condonation of Delay filed by the appellant along with Form-35 without appreciating and considering the correct facts of the case 2 That the Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai has erred in law and on facts in arbitrarily not admitting the Appeal filed by the appellant due to delay in filing of appeal, even when the appellant is prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause. 3 That the Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai has erred in law and on facts in arbitrarily rejecting the Application of Condonation of Delay filed by the appellant without proper basis and ignoring the correct facts of the case. 4 That the rejection of Application of Condonation of delay filed by the appellant is wholly unjustified and contrary to the principles of Natural Justice and Equity 5 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Order of the Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai erroneously disallowed the condonation of delay, overlooking the correct facts of the case that the appellant is prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause. 6 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai, erroneously disallowed the condonationof delay without acknowledging that the Printed from counselvise.com 3 appellant was prevented by a reasonable cause from filing the appeal in time. The delay was not due to dilatory tactics, lack of bona fide, deliberate inaction, or negligence on the part of the appellant, who always acted diligently and remained active. 7 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai, erroneously disallowed the condonation of delay, failing to recognize that the term \"Sufficient Cause\" for condonation of delay should be interpreted liberally to advance substantial justice. 8 That any other relief or reliefs as your honour may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, be granted. 9 your humble appellant craves leave to add, amend or withdraw of any Grounds of Appeal on/or before hearing of appeal.” (C) In the course of appellate proceeding in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), paper book containing the following particulars was filed from the assessee’s side. In addition, copies of the following orders of ITAT were also filed from the assessee’s side: 1. ‘Vishal Infraglobal Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT’ ITA No. 2080 & 2081/Ahd/2024, (Trib-Ahmedabad) order dated 01.04.2025. 2. ‘Chandra Goswami vs. ITO, Delhi’ ITA No. 3230/Del/2024 (Trib-Delhi) (D) At the time of hearing, the learned Authorized Representative (AR) for the assessee submitted that the assessee had adduced reasonable grounds for delay in filing of the appeal in the office of learned CIT(A). He further clarified that the delay arose because the assessee had pursued remedy through application u/s. 154 of the I.T. Act. However, realizing that the more appropriate remedy was to file appeal before the learned CIT(A), the assessee had separately filed appeal in the Office of Printed from counselvise.com 4 the learned CIT(A) also. He further submitted that the application for rectification u/s. 154 of the Act was filed by the assessee within prescribed time limit without any delay, which established that the assessee was not negligent, and that the assessee had no mala fide intention. The act of the assessee in pursuing remedy through application u/s 154 of the I. T. Act within good time, should be accepted as a reasonable cause for delay in condonation of filing of appeal in the office of the learned CIT(A), the learned AR for the assessee submitted. The learned A.R. for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) should be directed to decide assessee’s appeal on merits after condoning delay in filing of appeal in the office of the learned CIT(A). For this purpose, he relied on the aforesaid decided precedents in the cases of: 1. Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020[suomoto] No. 3 of 2020. 2. Subhash Malik vs. CIT, Meerut [2010] 187 taxman 88 (Alld) 3. Cheminor Drugs Ltd. vs. DCIT, Hyderabad [2007] 105 ITD 613 (Hyd). 4. Prominent Builders & Investors (P) Ltd. vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner [1985] 11 Income Tax Department 327 (Del). 5. HemlataVerma vs. M/s ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5131 of 2019. (SC). 6. HemlataVerma vs. M/a ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Special Leave petition (Civil) Diary No.(s) 11379 of 2019. (SC). 7. M/s Model Exim vs. PCIT (Central) ITA No. 137/Lkw/2022. 8. Collector, Land Acquision vs. Mst. Katiji and Ors. [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC). 9. AnuragRastogi vs. ITO, ITA No. 360/Lkw/2019 (Trib-Lko) 10. ‘Vishal Infraglobal Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT’ (Supra). 11. ‘Chandra Goswami vs. ITO, (Supra) (D.1) Learned Departmental Representative (DR) relied on the impugned order of the learned CIT(A), but left the matter to the discretion of the Bench. Printed from counselvise.com 5 (D.2) We are satisfied in the facts and circumstances of this specific case, having regard to the submissions made by the learned AR for the assessee, and having due regard to materials on record including the aforesaid paper book filed from the assessee’s side; this was a fit case for condonation of delay by the learned CIT(A). (D.2.1) In view of foregoing, we set aside the impugned appellate order of the learned CIT(A) and restore the disputed matter regarding addition made u/s. 143(1) of the Act, back to the file of the learned CIT(A) with the direction to condone the delay in filing of the appeal, and to decide the appeal on merits, in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. All grounds of appeal are treated as disposed of in accordance with aforesaid directions and order. (E) Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open court on 05/01/2026) Sd/. Sd/. (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated:05/01/2026 Aks/- Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. Concerned CIT 4. D.R., I.T.A.T. Printed from counselvise.com "