##PAGE1##

vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A-Bench” JAIPUR

Jherh vUuiw.kkZ xqIrk] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k

BEFORE: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM

vk;dj vihyla-@ITA

No. 476 & 477/JPR/2025

Shri Shanidev Charitable Trust Cuke The CIT(Exemption),

Rawat Nagar Bhati Ki Dang foy Sagar Vs. Jaipur.

Road, Ajmer.

LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkjla-@PAN/GIR No. ABBTS4485K

vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent

fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assessee

by : None

jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue

by: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT

lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date

of Hearing : 23/12/2025

mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date

of Pronouncement: 23/12/2025

vkns'k@ORDER

PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER .

This common order is to dispose of the above captioned two matters

filed by the applicant Trust.

The applicant Trust was before Learned CIT(E), Jaipur by way of two

application i.e. one u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax Act ( in short “the

Act”) to seek its registration.

2

ITA No. 476 & 477/JPR/2025

Shri Shanidev Charitable Trust, Ajmer.

Another application were also presented by the applicant before

Learned CIT(E) seeking approval u/s 80G of the Act.

2. Vide two separate orders of same date i.e. 29.11.2024, Learned

CIT(E) rejected both the application for the reasons recorded therein.

That is how, the impugned orders are challenged by the applicant

trust.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the rejection of the above said two applications,

the applicant Trust presented before this Appellate Tribunal, two separate

appeals.

On going through the files, the Registry raised objection that both the

appeals were barred by limitation by 54 days.

4. In view of the deficiency notes raised by the Registry, the applicant

was required to file application, if any, seeking condonation of delay.

However, despite opportunities, no such application seeking condonation of

delay came to be filed.

5. Both the impugned orders are dated 29.11.2024. As mentioned in

Forms 36, applicant Trust claims to have been served with/communicated

3

ITA No. 476 & 477/JPR/2025

Shri Shanidev Charitable Trust, Ajmer.

the impugned orders on 01.02.2025. It was for the applicant trust to

establish that the impugned orders were served/ communicated to the said

trust on 01.02.2025.

6. Record reveals that the matters were listed before the Bench on

13.08.2025, 17.09.2025 and 11.11.2025, but none has appeared on behalf

of the applicant, what to say of filing of application seeking condonation of

delay. Even today, none has appeared on behalf of the applicant despite

wait.

In PATHAPATI SUBBA REDDY (DIED) BY L.Rs. & ORS. v. THE

SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA), SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION

(CIVIL) NO. 31248 OF 2018, decided by Hon’ble Apex Court on 8.4.2024,

the moot question was whether in the facts and circumstances of the case,

the High Court was justified in refusing to condone the delay in filing the

proposed appeal and to dismiss it as barred by limitation.

After referring to various previous decisions on the point of

condonation of delay, Hon’ble Apex Court culled out the guiding principles

by observing in the manner as:

“On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the law, as aforesaid,

and the law laid down by this Court, it is evident that:

4

ITA No. 476 & 477/JPR/2025

Shri Shanidev Charitable Trust, Ajmer.

(i) Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be

an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than

the right itself;

(ii) A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of

for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a

fixed period of time;

(iii) The provisions of the Limitation Act have to be construed

differently, such as Section 3 has to be construed in a strict

sense whereas Section 5 has to be construed liberally;

(iv) In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal approach,

justice-oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be

kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the

substant