METROPOLITAN EDUCATION TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTION) 2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3915/MUM/2026 (AY: 2011-12) (Physical hearing) Metropolitan Education Trust ITO (Exemption) – 2(1), Mumbai Plot No. 20, 2nd Floor, F.M. House, vs 512, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vallabhbhai Road, Vile Parle (West), Parel, Mumbai – 400012. Mumbai – 400056. [PAN: AAATM8661M] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Pramod Parida, Advocate Revenue by Shri Mahesh Londhe, Sr. DR Date of hearing 04.08.2026 Date of pronouncement 17.08.2026 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFACdated 26.06.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12. 2. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. The learned authorised representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that assessment order as well as order of ld. CIT(A) is ex-parte order(s). The assessee failed to avail opportunity to contest the proceedings before lower authorities. The assessee is really interested in pursuing his case on merit. There was no deliberate non-compliance before lower authorities. The ld. AR for the assessee, further, fairly submits that there is delay of 220 days in filing appeal before Tribunal. The delay is neither intentional nor deliberate. The assessee suffered major accident and remained in hospital or about eight months. The

ITA No.3915/Mum/2026 (AY: 2011-12) Metropolitan Education Trust

official of Bombay Municipal Corporation (BMC) and Income tax department attached the bank accounts of the assessee. The assessee was not aware about the passing of impugned order by ld. CIT(A) soon after realising about passing of impugned order, the assessee filed appeal before Tribunal. The assessee is not going to be benefitted by filing appeal belatedly. The assessee has good case on merit and is likely to succeed if delay is condoned. The assessee was not residing in Mumbai due to various litigations with BMC and other authorities, thus, could not make timely compliance. The assessee is really interested in pursuing case on merit, therefore, matter may be restored back to the file of ld. CIT(A). 3. On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue submits that AO as well as ld. CIT(A), therefore in case this bench of the view, the assessee deserves any leniency matter may be restored back to the file of AO with the direction to the assessee to make compliance in time. On the issue of delay, the ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue submits that bench may take view in accordance with law. 4. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. Firstly, we are considering the plea of condonation of delay in filing appeal before Tribunal. Having considered the explanation in the submission of assessee as recorded in para-3 above, we find that there is reasonable cause for condoning the delay in filing present appeal. Hence, the delay in filing appeal is condoned. Now, adverting to merits of the case.

ITA No.3915/Mum/2026 (AY: 2011-12) Metropolitan Education Trust

MUMBAI, Dated: 17/08/2026 Biswajit Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; and (5) Guard file. By Order

Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai