Inordinate delay in filing appeal not condonable absent sufficient cause; limitation law prevails over liberal justice approach.

ORDER 

PER BIJYANANDA PRUSETH, AM:

These appeals filed by the assessee emanate from the orders passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act’) by the ADDL./JCIT (A)-7, Delhi [in short, “CIT(A)”], both dated 24.09.2025, for the assessment years (AY) 2018-19 and 2019-20. Since the facts are similar and the grounds are identical, with consent of both parties, the appeals were clubbed and heard together and a common order is passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. ITA No.7651/M/2025 for AY 2018-19 is taken as the “lead” case.

2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.7651/M/2025 (AY 2018-19) are as under:

“1 Condonation refused without justification: The Ld. CITA erred in refusing to condone the delay in filing the first appeal despite a bona fide and reasonable explanation non-receipt of physical notices and reliance on professional advice, supported by affidavits and contemporaneous material. The delay deserves to be condoned and the appeal admitted for adjudication on merits.

2. Incorrect Quantification of Delay Supreme Court Limitation Extension. The Ld. CIT A erred in mechanically calculating the delay as 1,797 days. The Ld. CIT A failed to exclude the period covered by the Hon’ble Supreme Courts directions in Suo Motu Writ Petition Civil No. 3 of 2020 read with CBDT Circular No. 10/2021, which extended the limitation period for all judicial proceedings up to 28.02.2022, with a further 90-day grace period ending on 29.05.2022. Consequently, the delay should technically be counted only from 30.05.2022, reducing the delay to approximately 848 days.

3. Violation of natural justice: The order was passed without granting an effective opportunity of hearing, the order itself records Present for the appellant Not Applicable. The dismissal in limine violates audi alteram partem and is unsustainable.

4. Merits Section 10 23C iiiab: Without prejudice to above Grounds, the authorities below erred in taxing gross receipts and in denying exemption to a Government aided educational 4 institution that exists solely for educational purposes and is wholly/substantially financed by the Government. The Appellant is entitled to full exemption us 10 23C iiiab, the entire addition of Rs.1,88,15,759 deserves to be deleted.”

3. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.7652/M/2025 (AY 2019-20) are as under:

“1. Condonation refused without justification. The Ld. CITA erred in refusing to condone the delay in filing the first appeal despite a bona fide and reasonable explanation non-receipt of physical notices and reliance on professional advice, supported by affidavits and contemporaneous material. The delay deserves to be condoned and the appeal admitted for adjudication on merits.

2. Incorrect Quantification of Delay Supreme Court Limitation Extension. The Ld. CIT A materially erred in law by calculating the delay as 1,296 days. The Assessment Order was passed on 08.02.2021, and the normal limitation period expired in March 2021, which falls squarely within the period covered by the Honble Supreme Court directions in Suo Motu Writ Petition Civil No. 3 of 2020. The Honble Apex Court directed that for any limitation expiring between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022, the limitation shall stand extended to 29.05.2022. Consequently, the actionable delay should only be calculated from 30.05.2022, substantially reducing the delay to approximately 848 days. The Ld. CIT A failure to apply this binding apex court ruling renders the dismissal unsustainable.

3. Violation of natural justice: The order was passed without granting an effective oppo