Karnataka High Court
Chilume Social Service Society vs The Income Tax Officer on 1 August, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:29775-DB
ITA No. 122 of 2025
& ITA No. 123 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 122 OF 2025 AND
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 123 OF 2025
IN ITA No. 122/2025
BETWEEN:
1. CHILUME SOCIAL SERVICE SOCIETY
18, 5TH CROSS, KAMANNAHALLI
ST. THOMAS TOWN S.O.
BANGALORE NORTH
BANGALORE - 560 084
KARNATAKA, INDIA
PAN AAATC9991L
Digitally REPRESENTED BY A V JOSEPH
signed by
AMBIKA H B ...APPELLANT
Location: (BY SRI. A MAHESH CHOWDHARY, ADVOCATE)
High Court
of Karnataka
AND:
1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER
(EXEMPTIONS) WARD -1
UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE
MISSION ROAD
BANGALORE - 27
...RESPONDENT
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:29775-DB
ITA No. 122 of 2025
& ITA No. 123 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 28.05.2025 IN ITA
NO.249/BANG/2025 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL, 'A' BENCH, BANGALORE FOR THE A.Y.2018-19
VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
IN ITA NO. 123/2025
BETWEEN:
1. CHILUME SOCIAL SERVICE SOCIETY
18, 5TH CROSS, KAMANNAHALLI
ST. THOMAS TOWN S.O.
BANGALORE NORTH
BANGALORE - 560 084
KARNATAKA, INDIA
PAN AAATC9991L
REPRESENTED BY A V JOSEPH
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. A MAHESH CHOWDHARY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER
(EXPEMTIONS) WARD-1
UNITY BUILDING ANNEXURE
MISSION ROAD
BANGALORE - 27
...RESPONDENT
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 28.05.2025 IN ITA NO.248/ BANG/2025
PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 'A'
BENCH, BENGALURU, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-
16 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:29775-DB
ITA No. 122 of 2025
& ITA No. 123 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU ,CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU,CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The appellant [Assessee] has filed the present appeals
impugning a common order dated 28.05.2025 passed by the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT] in ITA Nos.248 to 250/Bang/
2025. The above captioned ITA No.122/2025 is an appeal against
the impugned order insofar as it relates to ITA No.249/Bang/2025
in respect of the Assessment Year [AY] 2018-19. And, ITA
No.123/2025 is an appeal against the impugned order insofar as it
relates to ITA No.248/Bang/ 2025 in respect of AY 2015-16.
2. The Assessee had filed appeals before the learned ITAT
assailing the orders dated 13.12.2024, passed by the learned
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The said appeals
were rejected as the learned ITAT found no infirmity with the
decision of the learned CIT(A) dismissing the appeals preferred by
the Assessee against the assessment orders in respect of the
relevant assessment years, on account of delay. The learned
NC: 2025:KHC:29775-DB
HC-KAR
CIT(A) had declined to condone the inordinate delay of seven
years in filing the appeals.
3. The only explanation provided by the Assessee for delay in
filing the appeals was that the trustee was suffering from adverse
health conditions. Concededly, no material was furnished to
substantiate the aforesaid contention. The learned CIT(A) also
noticed that the income tax return filed by the Assessee for one of
the assessment years was also delayed and the reasons provided
for the delay in a letter addressed to the Principal Commissioner of
Income Tax was identical to the one proffered for explaining the
delay in filing the appeals; that is, the trustee was suffering from
adverse health issues. Thus, not only was the filing of the return
delayed for the reason of adverse health issues of the trustee but,
the seven years of delay thereafter was also sought to be
explained for the very same reason.
4. Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the CIT(A), the
Assessee preferred the abovementioned appeals before the ITAT.
However, the ITAT found no grounds to fault the decision of the
CIT(A).
NC: 2025:KHC:29775-DB
HC-KAR
5. We are unable to accept that either the learned CIT(A) or the
ITAT has failed to exercise its discretion or that the decision suffers
from any perversity. Plainly, in the given facts and circumstances of
the present case, no substantial question of law arises for
consideration of this Court.
6. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
AHB
