SHREE SAI KRUPA SAHKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 27(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H (SMC)” MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (JUDICIAL MEMBER)

ITA No. 4844/MUM/2026 Assessment Year: 2018-19

Shree Sai Krupa Sahkari Patsanstha Income Tax Officer – 27(3)(1), Maryadit Mumbai Siddheshwar Chawl No. 9, Indira Nagar, Vs. Room no. 422, Tower no. 6, Vashi Golibar Road, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai, Station Complex, Vashi Navi Maharashtra 400086. Mumbai Maharashtra – 400703. PAN NO. AAABS2489R APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Assessee by : Shri Kumar Kale, Adv. Department by : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 07.08.2026 Date of pronouncement : 13.08.2026

ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 25.02.2026, passed by the Learned Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) – 2, Vadodara [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for Assessment Year (in short ‘A.Y’) 2018-19, arising following grounds:-

Shree Sai Krupa Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit 2 Vs. Income Tax Officer – 27(3)(1), Mumbai ITA No. 4844/MUM/2026

delay was caused due to reasonable and sufficient reasons, and therefore, he ought to have condoned the delay. Your appellant, therefore, prays that the aforesaid delay may kindly be condoned, and the matter be restored to the file of the Ld. FAA for adjudication on its merits. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the appellant submits that it is eligible to claim deduction u/s. 80P of the Act of Rs.14,82,066/- as per its returned income as against Rs.7,80,352/- allowed by the Ld. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru. The appellant, therefore, prays that deduction u/s. 80P be fully allowed to it as claimed in the return of income. Your appellant craves leave to alter, modify, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal, or to add one or more new ground(s), as may be necessary. 2. At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) declined to condone the delay of 2,060 days in filing the appeal before him. The relevant findings of the learned CIT(A), inter-alia, are that the intimation under section 143(1) was passed and served upon the assessee on 12.07.2019, whereas the appeal was filed only on 01.04.2025; that the assessee had attributed the delay principally to the illness of the manager of the society and the subsequent conduct of its AGM and elections; and that these circumstances did not, in the opinion of the learned CIT(A), constitute sufficient cause for such prolonged delay. The learned CIT(A), accordingly, declined to condone the delay without examining the appeal on merits. The relevant finding of ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under:

“7. Decision: I have carefully considered the facts on record, the assessment order, grounds of appeal and the submissions made by the appellant in the instant case during the appellate proceedings.

Shree Sai Krupa Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit 3 Vs. Income Tax Officer – 27(3)(1), Mumbai ITA No. 4844/MUM/2026

7.1.1 At the outset, it is observed that there is delay in filing of appeal. As per clause (2) section 249 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an appeal made to the Commissioner (Appeals) shall be presented within thirty days of the date of service of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty, where the appeal relates to any assessment or penalty. As per details mentioned in Form 35, it is noticed that intimation u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, that is order under appeal, was passed by the AO, CPC on 12.07.2019. The same was served on the appellant on 12.07.2019. Therefore, the due date for filing of appeal was 12.08.2019. However, the appeal has only been filed on 01.04.2025. Thus, the appeal is delayed by more than 05 years. 7.1.2 Now coming to the delay in filing of appeal, Section 249(3) of the IT Act, 1961 deals with condonation of delay in filing appeal. The section states that “Commissioner Appeals may admit an appeal after expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period" Thus, it is clear that appellant should have sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time and CIT Appeals need to be satisfied regarding the cause being sufficient. 7.2 In the case of appellant, there is delay of more than 05 years in filing the appeal. The appellant has submitted that the manager of the society was sick and later the society conducted AGM and election in 2022 and 2023 as the reason for delay in filing of appeal. The reason provided by the appellant for delay in filing of appeal cannot be accepted as a genuine ground for a delay so long in filing the appeal as conducting AGM and elections is a routine affair of a society/sanstha and it does not preclude the appellant from filing the appeal on time. It is therefore evident that appellant had no cause for not filing the appeal in time. In absence of any cogent reason regarding delay in filing appeal during the relevant period, it cannot be presumed that there was reasonable and sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal. 7.3 In the case of Baroda Rayon Corporation Ltd (Gujarat 87 STC 266), BaldeoLaiRoy Vs State of Bihar (Patna 11 STC 104) and M LoganathanVs CIT (Madras 302 ITR 139) it has been held that appellate authority needs to look into the fact that whether the appellant has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecuting of appeal. In the present case I do not think that the appellant has acted with reasonable diligence. 7.4 In the case of Nileshkumar Chhaganbhai Vasoya Vs ITO, (ITA No. 64/Srt/2023) the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Surat addressed

Shree Sai Krupa Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit 4 Vs. Income Tax Officer – 27(3)(1), Mumbai ITA No. 4844/MUM/2026

the issue of condoning the delay in filing an appeal. The appellant was seeking relief for a delay of 244 days due to being a common man unfamiliar with tax proceedings. However, the ITAT held that the legal illiteracy of a common man cannot be an excuse and refused to condone the delay. The ruling underscores the importance of adhering to legal timelines and the responsibility of individuals to seek appropriate advice when engaging in legal proceedings. It also underlines the principle that ignorance or illiteracy of the law is not an excuse. 7.5 In the case of Ramlal and others Vs Rewa Coalfields Ltd (AIR 1962 SC 361), Tractors and Farm Equipments Ltd (ITAT Chennai 104 ITD 149) and Madhu Dadha (Madras 317 ITR 458) it has been held that party has to show reason for delay on the last date of limitation period and thereafter for each day. Further, condonation of delay is not a matter of right. Court has to exercise the discretionary Jurisdiction. 7.6 In the case of Sri Venkatesa Paper & Boards Ltd. [2006] 98 ITD 200, Hon’ble ITAT Chennai held that in granting indulgence and condoning delay, appellate authority must be satisfied that there had been diligence on part of appellant and it was not guilty of negligence. It is further held that sufficient cause within contemplation of provisions of section 249(3) must be a cause which is beyond control of party invoking aid of provisions. In the case of T.Kishan [2012] 23 taxmann.com 383, Hon’ble ITAT Hyderabad has held that in granting indulgence and condoning delay in filing appeal, it must be proved beyond shadow of doubt that assessee was diligent and was not guilty of negligence whatsoever. 7.7 In the case of Prabhudas Kishoredas Tobacco Products P.Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, [1994] 48 ITD 543 (AHD.), it has been held that it is a settled law that in order to get the delay condoned or excused in pursuing the remedies available to the appellant under the direct tax laws, the appellant has to explain the delay to the satisfaction of the Tribunal. In deciding what is sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal, the true guide is whether the appellant has acted with reasonable diligence in prosecution of his appeal (AsiBai v. Gomathi AIR 1979 Mad. 115 at page 116). As laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361, 364, in the case of Sitaram Ramchandra v. M.N. Nagrashana AIR 1960 SC 260, 265, 266 and in the case of Mrs.Sandhya Rani Sarkar v. Smt. Sudha Rani Debi AIR 1978 SC 537, the appellant has to show sufficient cause for not filing the appeal on the last date of the limitation and must explain the delay made thereafter day by day till the actual date of the filing of the appeal. In

Shree Sai Krupa Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit 5 Vs. Income Tax Officer – 27(3)(1), Mumbai ITA No. 4844/MUM/2026

other words, the whole of the delay must be explained. The Madras High Court in the case of Andal Sweet Stall & Tippo Dining Hall v. State of Tamil Nadu [1981] 48 STC 551 have laid down that a judgment or pronouncement by a court long after the period of limitation cannot be taken advantage for filing of appeal with a petition to excuse the delay in filing the appeal. It is true that the parties are entitled to wait until the last date of the limitation for filing of the appeal, but when it allows the limitation to expire and come forward with an explanation enumerating reasonable causes for not filing the appeal within the time prescribed under the statute, then the causes so shown must establish that because of some event or circumstances arising before limitation expired, she/it was not able to file the appeal within the stipulated time mandated in law. Any event, cause or circumstance arising after the expiry of the limitation period cannot constitute a sufficient cause. There may be events or circumstances subsequent to the expiry of the limitation period which may further delay in filing of the appeal, but the limitation has been allowed to expire when the appeal being filed must be traced to a cause arising within the period of limitation. 7.8 In the present case, appellant has neither mentioned any cogent and convincing ground for delay in filing the appeal nor furnished anything to prove that it had acted diligently and was not guilty of negligence. Under these circumstances, as the appeal is filed beyond the due date prescribed under law and no valid reason for same has been mentioned. Therefore, delay in filing of appeal is not condoned. In the result, appeal stands dismissed. 7.9. In view of the fact that appeal has been dismissed on the ground of rejection of petition for condonation of delay, merit of the case is not being discussed. 8. In result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.” 3. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee has filed an affidavit sworn by the trustee of the assessee-society. It has been submitted therein that the assessee is a small cooperative society and is not conversant with the provisions of the Income-tax Act and had been relying upon its tax consultant for compliance with tax matters. It has further been stated that although the intimation

Shree Sai Krupa Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit 6 Vs. Income Tax Officer – 27(3)(1), Mumbai ITA No. 4844/MUM/2026

under section 143(1) had been provided to the tax consultant, the same was not brought to the notice of the assessee. According to the assessee, it came to know of the adjustment only subsequently, when the issue relating to non-receipt of the refund came to its notice, whereupon the assessee obtained a copy of the intimation and took steps to pursue the appellate remedy.

4.1 The power to condone delay is to be exercised judicially, having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. At the stage of considering condonation, the Court or appellate authority is required to determine whether the cause shown constitutes “sufficient cause”; it is not the length of the delay by itself which concludes the matter. Equally, a litigant seeking condonation cannot claim such relief as a matter of right and must satisfactorily account for the delay.

Shree Sai Krupa Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit 7 Vs. Income Tax Officer – 27(3)(1), Mumbai ITA No. 4844/MUM/2026

4.2 In the present case, we are not inclined to express any final opinion as to whether the explanation furnished by the assessee constitutes sufficient cause for the entire period of delay. That question is required to be considered by the learned CIT(A) in the first instance upon appreciation of the affidavit and the supporting material now placed on record. Denial of an opportunity to have the explanation examined on the basis of the complete material would, in the peculiar facts of the present case, result in the assessee being deprived of consideration of its explanation without the same having been examined in its entirety.

4.3 We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for the limited purpose of reconsidering the assessee's application for condonation of delay of 2,060 days subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/- which the assessee willingly expressed to pay to the Prime Minister Relief Fund within one month of receipt of this order. The learned CIT(A) shall consider the affidavit filed before us, the supporting documents, the explanation already furnished before him and such further material as the assessee may be permitted to place on record, and thereafter decide, by a speaking order and in accordance with law, whether sufficient cause has been established for condoning the delay. Needless to say, the learned CIT(A) shall afford the assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard. In case the delay is condoned, the appeal shall thereafter be adjudicated on merits in

Shree Sai Krupa Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit 8 Vs. Income Tax Officer – 27(3)(1), Mumbai ITA No. 4844/MUM/2026

accordance with law. We have expressed no opinion on the merits of the assessee's explanation for the delay or on the grounds raised in the appeal.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 13/08/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (ANIKESH BANERJEE) (OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 13/08/2026 ANKIT, PS

Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file.

BY ORDER, //True Copy//

(Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai