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 Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Society, Aayakar Bhawan, C R Bhartiya Vidhya Mandir Vs Rohtak-124001.

Sr. Sec. School, P.O.Dharan, Vill-Balawas Jat Bawal, Rewari-123401 Haryana.

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.

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 (Madurai) (P)