GIRIDARSHAN SHANKHESHWAR PARSHWANATH JAIN TRUST,MUMBAI vs. I.T.O (E) WARD, 1(3), MUMBAI

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई पीठें, म ुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI BENCH: E BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA 3875/MUM/2026 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2019-2020) GIRIDARSHAN I.T.O (E) WARD, 1(3) SHANKHESHWAR CUMBALLA HILL, MTNL PARSHWANATH JAIN TRUST BUILDING, PEDDER 204 REGAL DIAMOND CENTRE ROAD, MUMBAI 400026 TATA ROAD NO 1 OPERA MUMBAI-400026, Vs. HOUSE MUMABI MAHARASHTRA MAHARASHTRA 400004, MUMBAI-400004, MAHARASHTRA अपीलधर्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी Respondent

Permanent Account Number of Assessee: AAATG7362H

अपीलधर्थी द्वारा/Appellant represented by: Shri Bharat Kumar, AR प्रत्यर्थी द्वारा/Respondent represented by: Shri Dheeraj Singh Baghel, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusion of hearing: 15-Jul-2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement: 21-09-2026 आदेश / ORDER PER SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 30/01/2026 passed by the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-2, Ahmedabad [“Ld. CIT(A)”] u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for A.Y. 2019-20, whereby the appeal filed by the assessee against the intimation dated 18/05/2020 passed u/s.143(1) of the Act was dismissed in limine on account of delay in filing the appeal.

ITA 3875/MUM/2026 GIRIDARSHAN SHANKHESHWAR PARSHWANATH JAIN TRUST 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal, without properly appreciating the existence of reasonable and sufficient cause for such delay as explained by the appellant, thereby denying the appellant an effective opportunity of being heard. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further erred in dismissing the appeal in limine on the ground of limitation and in not adjudicating the appeal on merits, despite the specific grounds raised and material available on record. 3. The Appellant keeps his right reserve to add/modify/delete any ground of appeal during the appellant proceedings.” 2.1. Brief facts of the case are as under:

The assessee is a Public Charitable Trust registered u/s.12A of the Act. For the year under consideration, the assessee claimed accumulation of income u/s.11(2). According to the assessee, while furnishing Form No.10, due to an inadvertent error, the amount intended to be accumulated at Rs.10,00,000/- was mentioned as Rs.1,00,000/-. The CPC, while processing the return u/s.143(1), restricted the accumulation accordingly and made an adjustment of the differential amount of Rs.9,00,000/-.

Aggrieved by the said adjustment, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A).

ITA 3875/MUM/2026 GIRIDARSHAN SHANKHESHWAR PARSHWANATH JAIN TRUST despite being called upon to explain the delay, the assessee had not filed an application seeking condonation supported by an affidavit or furnished sufficient reasons for the delay. The appeal was therefore dismissed in limine without adjudicating the grounds raised on merits.

Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before u/s.

ITA 3875/MUM/2026 GIRIDARSHAN SHANKHESHWAR PARSHWANATH JAIN TRUST could not be resolved by way of rectification, the appeal was thereafter filed before the Ld. CIT(A). It was thus submitted that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional and arose on account of bona fide circumstances beyond the control of the assessee.

4.1. The Ld. AR submitted that substantial justice ought not to be defeated on account of a technical consideration of limitation when a reasonable explanation has been furnished. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors., (1987) 2 SCC 107, and also on Inder Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil Appeal No.4304 of 2025, order dated 21/03/2025.

4.2. The Ld.DR on the contrary, supported the impugned order.

We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in light of the record placed before us.

ITA 3875/MUM/2026 GIRIDARSHAN SHANKHESHWAR PARSHWANATH JAIN TRUST from 01/03/2022, unless the actual balance period available was longer.

5.1. Thus, the gross delay computed by the Ld.CIT(A) from the date of the intimation cannot, by itself, be determinative without giving effect to the aforesaid directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court. Be that as it may, there remains a substantial period of delay even thereafter, which is required to be examined on the touchstone of “sufficient cause” contemplated u/s.249(3) of the Act.

5.2. On examining the explanation now placed before us, we note that the assessee has attributed the delay to non-access of the registered e-mail account, absence of effective knowledge of the adjustment/demand, discontinuance of services by the erstwhile accountant, transfer of records to a new Chartered Accountant, subsequent discovery of the outstanding demand and the initial attempt to seek rectification before resorting to appellate proceedings. The assessee has also stated that immediately upon realising that the issue could not be resolved through rectification, steps were taken to prefer the appeal. There is nothing on record to suggest that the assessee stood to derive any advantage by deliberately delaying the filing of its appeal.

5.3. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (supra) has observed that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late and that, where substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. The Hon’ble Supreme

ITA 3875/MUM/2026 GIRIDARSHAN SHANKHESHWAR PARSHWANATH JAIN TRUST Court emphasised that the expression “sufficient cause” should receive a justice-oriented and pragmatic construction.

5.4. In the present case, the Ld.CIT(A) rejected the appeal principally because no satisfactory explanation or condonation petition was furnished before him. We do not find fault with the observation that the assessee had failed to place the requisite explanation at that stage. However, a detailed explanation has now been placed before us. Considering the peculiar facts, the period covered by the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relating to COVID-19 limitation, the explanation furnished regarding the manner in which the demand came to the knowledge of the assessee, the change of tax professional and the steps subsequently taken to resolve the issue, we are satisfied that the assessee has demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay in pursuing the appellate remedy.

5.5. We, therefore, consider it appropriate, in the interest of substantial justice, to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Since the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of limitation and has not adjudicated the issues raised by the assessee on merits, we refrain from expressing any view on the merits of the adjustment made u/s.143(1).

ITA 3875/MUM/2026 GIRIDARSHAN SHANKHESHWAR PARSHWANATH JAIN TRUST

opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to furnish all necessary details and documents and to extend due cooperation in the appellate proceedings.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 21-09-2026.

Sd/- Sd/- VIKRAM SINGH YADAV BEENA PILLAI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai Dated: 21-09-2026 Shamik Sr. P.S.

ITA 3875/MUM/2026 GIRIDARSHAN SHANKHESHWAR PARSHWANATH JAIN TRUST

Copy to: GIRIDARSHAN SHANKHESHWAR PARSHWANATH JAIN TRUST, 204 REGAL DIAMOND CENTRE TATA 1 ROAD NO 1 OPERA HOUSE MUMABI MAHARASHTRA 400004, MUMBAI-400004, MAHARASHTRA I.T.O (E) WARD, 1(3), CUMBALLA HILL, MTNL BUILDING, 2 PEDDER ROAD, MUMBAI 400026, MUMBAI-400026, MAHARASHTRA 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE TRUE COPY

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY I.T.A.T., MUMBAI