Chilume Social Service Society v. The Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Ward-1, Bangalore

1. FACTS OF THE CASE

Chilume challenged the ITAT common order of 28 May 2025. ITA 122/2025 concerned AY 2018-19 and Tribunal appeal 249/Bang/2025; ITA 123/2025 concerned AY 2015-16 and appeal 248/Bang/2025. The Tribunal had sustained the CIT(A) orders of 13 December 2024 rejecting delayed appeals.

Source: PDF pp.2–3

2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT

The judgment describes a seven-year delay. The only explanation was a trustee’s ill health, concededly unsupported by material. The same explanation had also been offered for a delayed return for one year. The High Court found neither failure to exercise discretion nor perversity.

Source: PDF pp.4–5, paras 3–5

3. JUDICIAL DECISION

No substantial question of law arose. Both appeals were dismissed.

Source: PDF p.5, paras 5–6

4. OUTCOME

Revenue successful on the limitation dispute; underlying assessment merits were not examined.

Source: PDF pp.3–5

5. Expert Comments

AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings.

Explain the period, not merely the condition

The problem was the unsupported explanation for prolonged inaction, including its repetition for a return delay and the ensuing appeal delay. Medical evidence linked to the relevant periods and an account of how the illness prevented filing would address that evidentiary gap. The judgment does not hold that illness can never justify condonation.

Source: PDF p.4, para3

Section 260A was not a fresh discretionary rehearing

The Court asked whether the appellate authorities failed to exercise discretion or reached a perverse conclusion. It found neither on this record. A further challenge therefore needs to identify a legal defect in the treatment of the evidence, not simply repeat the original request for indulgence.

Source: PDF p.5, para5

Separate years and procedural stages

The present order concerns two specified years despite the common ITAT order covering three appeals. Its seven-year description is reproduced without inventing separate filing dates for each year. It neither decides charitable exemption nor evaluates the assessment additions; those issues were not reached through the limitation barrier.

Source: PDF pp.2–5