SRI SAI BABA SANSTHAN, BHILAI,DURG V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 249/RPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Sri Sai Baba Sansthan, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, which had dismissed their appeal in limine due to a delay of 405 days in filing the appeal. The original assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Exemption-II, Raipur, accepting the returned income but making various additions. The appellant, after changing counsel, filed a delayed appeal citing the illegality of the reassessment proceedings. The Tribunal found that the delay was unintentional and primarily due to the change of counsel, and thus, it was condoned. The matter was remanded back for a decision on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 398097 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Other Referred Cases: M Sri Nivasulu vs ACIT, Vedabhai alias Vaijayantabai Baburao Patil vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil, CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYANKA PATEL
• Assessee Lawyers: S.R. RAO
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण Ûयायपीठ “एक-सदèय” मामला रायपुर मɅ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR Įी पाथ[ सारथी चौधरȣ, ÛयाǓयक सदèय क े सम¢ BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.249/RPR/2025 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Sri Sai Baba Sansthan Sai Mandir, Avenue-B, Civic Center, Sector-6, Bhilai-490 006 (C.G.) PAN: AADTS8938G .......अपीलाथȸ / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer Exemption-II, Raipur (C.G.) ……Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent Assessee by : Shri S.R. Rao, Advocate Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 02.06.2025 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 02.06.2025 2 Sri Sai Baba Sansthan Vs. ITO, Exemption-II, Raipur ITA No.249/RPR/2025 आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM The captioned appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, dated 30.08.2024 for the assessment year 2015-16 as per the grounds of appeal on record. 2. At the very outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine without condoning the delay of 405 days. The assessee had prayed for condonation of aforesaid delay before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC by stating as follows: “For the year under consideration, return of income was filed by the appellant u/s.139 vide acknowledgement No.736025791310317 dt. 31-03-2017. The A.O issued u/s.143(2) dt. 07.08.2017 in response to that return filed by appellant. The A.O completed reassessment vide order dt. 27.12.2017 accepting the returned income and making various addition. (2) The assessment order was received by the appellant on 02.01.2018 and therefore, the appeal was required to be filed by 01.02.2018 which is now being filed on 13.03.2019, thereby resulting into delay of 405 days. 3) While filing appeal against the assessment order, the appellant changed its counsel and the new counsel appraised the appellant of correct position of law and the illegality of initiation of re assessment proceedings against the appellant. In view of the advice given by the new counsel, the appellant is filing delayed appeal with a request to kindly consider the facts of the case sympathetically and to kindly condone the delay in filing appeal. 3 Sri Sai Baba Sansthan Vs. ITO, Exemption-II, Raipur ITA No.249/RPR/2025 (4) Condoning the delay in filing appeal will render justice to the appellant and will prevent an illegal order from being enforced which will advance the cause of justice. It will also prevent the tax being levied in a manner contrary to mandate of law.\" 3. In this regard, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had observed and held as follows: “The facts of the case and the grounds raised by the appellant have been considered carefully. There is inordinate delay in the filing of appeal for which no sufficient reason is given by the appellant. The term sufficient cause means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner but must had acted diligently and not remained in active. Reliance is placed on the judgement on Hon'ble High Court in the case of M Sri Nivasulu vs ACIT (TS-817-HC- 2023(MAD) dated 21.12.2023. The appellant has failed to justify the inordinate delay in filing appeal. From the factual position which emerges it appears that a conscious and considered decision was taken by the appellant at the relevant point of time for not filing of appeal against the impugned order. It is well-settled law that a distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and where the delay is of few days only. The inordinate delay in the instant case clearly demonstrates that this appeal was not prosecuted with due care. On the issue of a routine delay and an inordinate delay the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vedabhai alias Vaijayantabai Baburao Patil vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil [2002] reported in 122 Taxman 114 has made a distinction between delays that are trivial and cases where inordinately large delays had occurred. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that the cases of trivial delays have to be liberally considered, however the cases of inordinate delays have to be approached cautiously. The relevant portion of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is reproduced as under. In exercising discretion under section 5 of the Limitation Act the courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case, the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor so the case calls for a more cautious approach but in the latter case no such consideration may 4 Sri Sai Baba Sansthan Vs. ITO, Exemption-II, Raipur ITA No.249/RPR/2025 arise and such a case deserves a liberal approach No hard and fast rule can be laid down in this regard\". In view of the above detailed discussion, it is held that the appellant has no \"sufficient cause\" in terms of section 249(3) of the Act, for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed period. It is well-settled law that an appellant is not entitled to the condonation as a matter of right. For an appellant to succeed, the existence of sufficient cause is sine qua non and a condition precedent. It is manifestly evident that this ingredient is woefully lacking in this belated appeal filed by the appellant. Thus, the delay in filing the appeal by the appellant, is not considered as sufficient cause and delay is therefore not condoned. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without any discussion on merits or on any other aspect. Considering the above discussion and facts, the appeal filed is not in conformity with the provisions of Sec 249(2) of the Act, and there is no sufficient cause for condonation of the delay in filing of the appeal. The present appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.” 4. I have carefully considered the submissions of the parties, analyzed the facts and circumstances in this case. I am of the view that the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC is not in terms with Section 250(4) & (6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). Admittedly, there has been delay of 405 days in filing appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and the said delay has been explained by the assessee and having gone through the reasons, I am of the considered view that such delay has been caused due to circumstances which are not at all intentional, deliberate or malafide, if any in respect of the assessee. That as per the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Premkumar 5 Sri Sai Baba Sansthan Vs. ITO, Exemption-II, Raipur ITA No.249/RPR/2025 Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bom) that every appellate authority should decide the grounds of appeal on merits. In this case, the matter has been dismissed in limine without condoning the delay of 405 days by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. That as examined by me, such delay since unintentional and primarily due to change of counsel by the assessee, therefore, it calls for much more judicial approach keeping in view the directives of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases viz. (i) Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Civil Appeal Nos……………../2025 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26310- 26311/2024, dated 31.01.2025; and (ii) Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil Appeal No…………/2025, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6145 of 2024, dated 21st March, 2025. Therefore, respectfully following the mandate of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, the said delay of 405 days is condoned and the matter is remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for denovo adjudication as per law while complying with the principles of natural justice. The Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC shall pass a speaking order on merits in terms with Section 250(4) and (6) of the Act. At the same time, the assessee is directed to comply all the hearing notices as and when would be issued by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. 6 Sri Sai Baba Sansthan Vs. ITO, Exemption-II, Raipur ITA No.249/RPR/2025 5. As per the above terms, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 2nd day of June, 2025. Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) ÛयाǓयक सदèय/JUDICIAL MEMBER रायपुर / Raipur; Ǒदनांक / Dated : 2nd June, 2025. SB, Sr. PS आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant. 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, “एक-सदèय” बɅच, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Raipur. 5. गाड[ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur "