ITAT declines to condone 661-day delay, holding that the trust failed to establish sufficient cause for late filing of appeal.

ITAT Rejects Appeal Filed After 661 Days, Finds No Sufficient Cause for Delay The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (<a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://studycafe.in/itat-quashes-section-263-revision-where-ao-conducted-detailed-enquiry-425445.html">ITAT</a>) has dismissed the appeal filed by Dr. Janardan Shankar Mulye Public Trust after finding an unexplained delay of 661 days in filing the case. [related id="425393"]The trust had challenged the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune, which had rejected its application for registration under Sections 12A and 12AB of the Income Tax Act. The rejection order was passed on 6 February 2024, while the appeal before the ITAT was filed only on 30 January 2026. During the hearing, the trust requested the Tribunal to condone the delay. It submitted an affidavit stating that it had appointed a tax consultant to handle all income-tax matters and genuinely believed that the consultant was taking care of the proceedings. According to the trust, the consultant failed to inform it about the notices issued by the department and the rejection order. The trust also claimed that the department had sent communications to an old email address and mobile number, because of which it did not receive the notices in time. [related id="425410"]However, the Income Tax Department opposed the request for condonation of delay. The department argued that the trust had not cooperated during the registration proceedings and had failed to provide the required details before the Commissioner (Exemption), leading to the rejection of its application. After examining the affidavit, the Tribunal found several gaps in the trust’s explanation. It noted that although the trust blamed its tax consultant, it did not mention the consultant’s name anywhere in the affidavit. During the hearing, the Tribunal specifically asked the trust’s authorised representative to identify the consultant, but no answer was provided. The Bench also asked if the trust had taken any action against the consultant for professional misconduct, like filing a complaint with the relevant professional body. The authorised representative could not give any details and the Tribunal did not believe the trust’s explanation. The Tribunal also noted that the trust had said that notices had been sent to an inoperative email address, but had not revealed what the email address was or provided any evidence to back up its assertion. It has not also shown that it had informed the <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://studycafe.in/income-tax-department-flags-20000-cases-of-wrong-deduction-claims-through-swapped-provisions-tax-strategy-425107.html">Income Tax Department</a> about any change in its contact details. In view of these deficiencies, the Tribunal held that the trust had failed to establish a "sufficient cause" for the extraordinary delay in filing the appeal. It also stated that the Supreme Court judgment relied upon by the trust was not applicable because every delay must be examined on its own facts. [related id="425442"]Accordingly, the ITAT refused to condone the 661-day <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://studycafe.in/itat-allows-foreign-tax-credit-despite-delay-in-filing-form-67-calls-requirement-procedural-425414.html">delay</a> and dismissed the appeal without examining the merits of the trust’s claim for registration under Sections 12A and 12AB of the Income Tax Act.

ITAT Rejects Appeal Filed After 661 Days, Finds No Sufficient Cause for Delay

GSTN has issued FAQs clarifying the mandatory Ship-to field and voluntary e-Way Bill closure process.

GSTN Releases FAQs on Mandatory Ship-to Field and Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure

Haryana Tops Nation in SGST Growth with 22% Rise in May 2026 Collections

SEBI Launches Settlement Helpdesk Facility to Simplify Settlement Application Process

Gujarat AAR Clarifies Compensation Recovered from Transporters for Transit Losses Is Not Liable to GST

Haryana Rolls Out One-Time Settlement Scheme for Pending Pre-GST Tax Cases

ITAT Allows Foreign Tax Credit of Rs. 13.91 Lakh Holding Late Filing of Form 67 Cannot Deny FTC Claim

ITAT held that member-wise cash deposits cannot be treated as unexplained under Section 68 without proper verification and upheld the co-operative society's Section 80P deduction.

ITAT: Cash Deposits From Members Not Unexplained Without Proper Verification

ITAT deletes Rs 1.14 crore Section 68 addition after finding all bank credits fully explained by documentary evidence.

ITAT Deletes Rs 1.14 Crore Section 68 Addition After Finding Bank Credits Fully Explained

The Pune ITAT restored the taxpayer's appeal, directing the CIT(A) to pass a reasoned order after granting one final opportunity.