M/s. Samvardhinee Nyas vs CIT (Exemption)

O R D E R

2.

In this regard it is respectfully submitted that there is a sufficient cause in not filing the captioned appeals in time and, therefore, the present application for condonation of delay may kindly be allowed. In this regard it is submitted as under

(i)

Appellant Trust is a charitable society constituted on 05-08-2021. First application seeking registration under provisions of section 12AB was filed on 05-10-2022 In the said application, the mobile number and email ID mentioned were that of Mrs. Poonam Bansal, Trustee of the Society, who had been handling all statutory, compliance, and departmental matters of the Society since inception. All departmental communications and notices were therefore being received on her registered email ID and mobile number

(ii)

That unfortunately, sometimes in December 2022 Mrs. Poonam Bansal's health started deteriorating and she started suffering from life-threatening medical emergencies. On 05-01-2023, she was admitted to BLK-MAX Super Specialty Hospital, New Delhi, in a critical condition and was diagnosed with spontaneous right-sided acute subdural hematoma with intracranial hemorrhage and mass effect and underwent an emergency right fronto-temporo-parietal decompressive craniectomy with evacuation of hematoma and lax duroplasty

(iii)

That thereafter she remained under prolonged ICU care, ventilator support, tracheostomy and critical post-operative treatment. Even after discharge, her condition remained extremely fragile. She continued to suffer from multiple serious neurological and systemic complications and required continuous treatment, hospitalization, and follow-ups at BLK-MAX Hospital and subsequently at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital from 2023 till 2026, as supported by medical records Copies of her hospitalization and medical records are annexed as Annexure B.

(iv)

That vide first impugned order dated 13-04-2023 the CIT(E) has rejected application dated 05-10-2022 filed by the appellant seeking registration u/s 12AB of the Act. That for reasons stated above it is submitted that notices dated 19-12-2022, 14-03-2023 and 05-04-2023 issued by the CIT(E) remained uncompiled and hence CIT(E) rejected request for registration without examining the merits of the matter.

(v)

That during the above period other trustees and family members were fully occupied with her life-saving treatment, hospitalization, and rehabilitation, which severely disrupted the normal administrative functioning and decision-making of the Society. As Mrs Poonam Bansal continued to suffer from serious medical complications for a long period, the Trust on 01-02-2025 assigned the responsibility of day-to-day compliance work to Mrs. Mamla Kaushik

(vi)

That being unaware of the earlier application and the proceedings connected thereto, Mis Mamta Kaushik, in good faith, filed a fresh application for registration under section 12A on 13-02-2025

(vii)

That vide order dated 04-09-2025 the CIT(E) has rejected the request made for registration vide second application dated 13-02-2025.

(viii)

It is stated that during the course of registration proceedings for second application detailed factual material was submitted by the appellant vide e-filings made on16-04-2025 and 18-07-2025. Vide reply dated 18-07-2025 additional time was sought by the appellant to furnish balance requirements on the 'rescheduled date of hearing on 25-07-2025”.

(ix)

That on 25-07-2025 no hearing was conducted by the CIT(E) as he was occupied with other official commitments. We were told that another notice will be issued notifying the next date of hearing.

(x)

That thereafter no notice was issued by the CIT(E) in this case and straightway the impugned order dated 04-09-2025 was issued. This has resulted in serious injustice as facts stated in para 4 of the impugned order ignores evidence on record and moreover levies allegations for which no show cause is issued by CIT(E).

(xi)

That upon service of second impugned order dated 04-09-2025, the Trust directed another trustee Mrs. Mamta Bhardwaj to consulted a professional seeking legal advice in the matter. During the process of consultation, collection, and arrangement of old records. documents, medical papers, and extracting previous correspondence from Mrs. Poonam Bansal, considerable time was consumed.

(xii)

It was only in the month of December 2026 that the counsel engaged in the matter advised the appellant to file an appeal before Hon'ble ITAT against all three impugned orders stated in para 1 above.

(xiii)

That thereafter acceding to the advise received the appellant (through Mrs. Mamta Bhardwaj) immediately instructed that appeals be drafted and hence the appeals were filed on 13-01-2026

3.

It is respectfully submitted that the courts have taken a view that rules of limitation are meant not to destroy the rights of the parties and that the court should not adopt an unjust approach in rejecting the application for condonation of delay. In the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji reported in [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC): (1987) 13 ALR 306 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows (page 472)

"The Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 5 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on 'merits. The expression 'sufficient cause employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge that this court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this court. But the message does not appeal to have percolated down to all the other courts in the hierarchy".

3.

And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that:

(i)

Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.

(ii)

Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this; when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.

(iii)

Every day's delay must be explained' does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational, common sense and pragmatic manner

(iv)

When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay

(v)

There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk. (v)

(vi)

It must be grasped that the judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice or technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.

-In Shankarrao v. Chandrasenkumar reported in [1987] Suppl. SCC 338, the Supreme Court took the view that the court should not adopt an injustice-oriented approach in rejecting the application for condonation of delay.

-In O.P. Kathpalia v. Lakhmir Singh reported in AIR 1984 SC 1744, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the refusal to condone the delay results in grave miscarriage of justice, it would be a ground to condone the delay.

-In State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani reported in AIR 1996 SC 1623, the hon'ble Supreme Court considered a large number of its earlier judgements including Binod Bihari Singh v. Union of India reported in [1993] 1 SCC 572, Shakambari and Co. v. Union of India reported in [1993] Suppl (1) SCC 487; Wartu v. Gangotribai reported in [1995] Suppl. (1) SCC 37, Ramlal v. RewaColafields Ltd. reported in AIR 1962 SC 361; Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi reported in [1979] 49 Comp Cas 463 (SC); AIR 1979 SC 1666; Mata Din v. A. Narayanan reported in AIR 1970 SC 1953, and held that the expression "each day's delay must be explained", does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made and it must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.

4.

Further kind reference is invited to the judgement of Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of United Christmas Celebration. Committee Charitable Trust reported in 249 Taxman 372(Mad). were in the Hon'ble High Court has held as under.

"8.

Besides this, there is another aspect of the matter, which is that, in dealing with issues, such as the one, we are faced with, not only the period of delay has to be taken in account, but also the quality of explanation, the legal assistance, if any, sought and rendered to the litigant, and the detriment that condonation of delay would cause to the opposing party These are aspects, if, looked at, closely, will enable the Court to come to a conclusion as to whether the delay was intentional and/or deliberate.

8.1

We find from the record that the Assessee, perhaps, did not receive the best legal assistance in the matter

8.2

Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that the period of delay is large, we are inclined to condone the delay, especially in the circumstances obtaining in the case, which is, that, if the Assessee were to succeed on merits, it could, hardly, be said that it would cause detriment to the Revenue, in a matter involving grant of registration."

5.

It is therefore humbly submitted that looking into the circumstances as stated hereinbefore and there being no malafides or there being no ulterior purpose, the delay in filling of appeal may kindly be condoned and the appeal be admitted and adjudicated upon. Prayed accordingly.”

"The Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 In order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on de merits". The expression "sufficient cause" employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge that this court has been making of justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other courts in the hierarchy.

And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that:

1.

Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.

2.

Refusing to condone delay can result in meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties."