SHREE GOVARDHANI SARVAJANIK SEVA SANSTHA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 2(3), MUMBAI

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

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

ITA No. 1199, 1198, 1197 & 1200/MUM/2026 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19

Shree Govardhani Sarvajanik Seva Income Tax Officer, Exemption Sanstha, Flat No.60-61, Prabhat Centre, Ward 2(3), Aayakar Bhawan, Vs. Sector 6 CBD, Belapur, Navi Mumbai – Mumbai - 400020, Maharashtra. 400614, Maharashtra. PAN NO. AAGTS 4694 A APPELLANT RESPONDENT

: Shri Hari Krishan (Virtually Assessee by Appeared) : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, (SR. DR) Department by : 22.04.2026 Date of Hearing : 05.05.2026 Date of pronouncement ORDER PER BENCH

These appeals by the assessee arise from separate orders passed by the learned Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–1, Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”] for Assessment Years 2014–15, 2016–17, 2017–18 and 2018–19. In all the years under consideration, the common issue pertains to refusal by the CIT(A) to condone the delay in filing the appeals. Since the issue involved is identical in all the appeals, they were

Shree G Govardhani Sarvajanik 2 Seva Sanstha ITA Nos. s.1199, 1197, 1198 and 1200/MUM/2026

heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. or the sake of convenience.

“The impugned appellate order dated 01.01.2026 passed by the Ld. The impugned appellate order dated 01.01.2026 passed by the Ld. The impugned appellate order dated 01.01.2026 passed by the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A)-1 AHMEDABAD, is invalid and unsustainable in law, as 1 AHMEDABAD, is invalid and unsustainable in law, as 1 AHMEDABAD, is invalid and unsustainable in law, as refusal to condone the delay has resulted in grave prejudice to the refusal to condone the delay has resulted in grave prejudice to refusal to condone the delay has resulted in grave prejudice to appellant by foreclosing its statutory right of appeal without examination appellant by foreclosing its statutory right of appeal without examination appellant by foreclosing its statutory right of appeal without examination of the merits of the case, thereby violating the principles of natural of the merits of the case, thereby violating the principles of natural of the merits of the case, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 2) The Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) 2) The Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A)-1 AHMEDABAD, erred in law and on facts in 1 AHMEDABAD, erred in law and on facts in rejecting the application for c rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, ondonation of delay in filing the appeal, without appreciating the bona fide and reasonable causes explained by without appreciating the bona fide and reasonable causes explained by without appreciating the bona fide and reasonable causes explained by the appellant. 3) The appellant respectfully submits that the Ld. ADDL/ JCIT(A)-1 3) The appellant respectfully submits that the Ld. ADDL/ JCIT(A) 3) The appellant respectfully submits that the Ld. ADDL/ JCIT(A) AHMEDABAD has failed to apply the settled principle that procedural AHMEDABAD has failed to apply the settled principle that proce AHMEDABAD has failed to apply the settled principle that proce laws are handmaids of justice, and that substantial justice must prevail laws are handmaids of justice, and that substantial justice must prevail laws are handmaids of justice, and that substantial justice must prevail over technical considerations, especially where no mala fide intention or over technical considerations, especially where no mala fide intention or over technical considerations, especially where no mala fide intention or deliberate delay is attributable to the appellant. deliberate delay is attributable to the appellant. 4) The Ld. ADDL/ JCIT(A) 4) The Ld. ADDL/ JCIT(A)-1 AHMEDABAD failed to appreciate that a appreciate that a mistake, lapse, or negligence on the part of the counsel / accountant mistake, lapse, or negligence on the part of the counsel / accountant mistake, lapse, or negligence on the part of the counsel / accountant constitutes a "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay, and that a constitutes a "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay, and that a constitutes a "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay, and that a litigant should not be made to suffer for the fault of his professional. litigant should not be made to suffer for the fault of his professional. litigant should not be made to suffer for the fault of his professional. 5) The delay was neither The delay was neither intentional nor deliberate, but occurred due to intentional nor deliberate, but occurred due to circumstances beyond the appellant's control, including reliance on the circumstances beyond the appellant's control, including reliance on the circumstances beyond the appellant's control, including reliance on the accountant for statutory compliances, disruption caused by the COVID-19 accountant for statutory compliances, disruption caused by the COVID accountant for statutory compliances, disruption caused by the COVID pandemic, and subsequent discovery of the demand only in connection pandemic, and subsequent discovery of the demand only in connect pandemic, and subsequent discovery of the demand only in connect with another matter. with another matter. 6) The Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) 6) The Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A)-1 AHMEDABAD erred in drawing an adverse 1 AHMEDABAD erred in drawing an adverse inference merely because a similar explanation was advanced in an inference merely because a similar explanation was advanced in an inference merely because a similar explanation was advanced in an

Shree G Govardhani Sarvajanik 3 Seva Sanstha ITA Nos. s.1199, 1197, 1198 and 1200/MUM/2026

earlier assessment year, without appreciating that each assessment year earlier assessment year, without appreciating that each assessment year earlier assessment year, without appreciating that each assessment year is a separate and independent is a separate and independent cause of action and must be adjudicated cause of action and must be adjudicated on its own facts. 7) No prejudice would have been caused to the Revenue by condoning the 7) No prejudice would have been caused to the Revenue by condoning the 7) No prejudice would have been caused to the Revenue by condoning the delay, whereas refusal to condone the delay has caused irreparable delay, whereas refusal to condone the delay has caused irreparable delay, whereas refusal to condone the delay has caused irreparable harm and injustice to the appellant. harm and injustice to the appellant.”

“4.1.1 The appellant Shree Govardhani Sarvajanik Seva Sanstha, is in appeal The appellant Shree Govardhani Sarvajanik Seva Sanstha, is in appeal The appellant Shree Govardhani Sarvajanik Seva Sanstha, is in appeal against the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act. 1961 for against the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Income against the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Income Assessment Year 2014 Assessment Year 2014-15, which was uploaded on the ITBA portal on ich was uploaded on the ITBA portal on 27.03.2017. The appellant has filed the present appeal only on 31.03.2022, 27.03.2017. The appellant has filed the present appeal only on 31.03.2022, 27.03.2017. The appellant has filed the present appeal only on 31.03.2022, accompanied by an application seeking condonation accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay of 1801 days. of delay of 1801 days. However, After excluding the period commencing fro After excluding the period commencing from 15.03.2020 in vie m 15.03.2020 in view of the suo-motu directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Cognizance for Extension of motu directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Cognizance for Extension of motu directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In Re and the consequential CBDT Circular No. 10/2021 dated Limitation, In Re and the consequential CBDT Circular No. 10/2021 dated Limitation, In Re and the consequential CBDT Circular No. 10/2021 dated

Shree G Govardhani Sarvajanik 4 Seva Sanstha ITA Nos. s.1199, 1197, 1198 and 1200/MUM/2026

25.05.2021, the appellant has computed the effective delay at 1055 days, 25.05.2021, the appellant has computed the effective delay at 1055 days, 25.05.2021, the appellant has computed the effective delay at 1055 days, covering the period fr covering the period from 26.04.2017 to 15.03.2020. The appellant submits that om 26.04.2017 to 15.03.2020. The appellant submits that the registered email ID and portal access were controlled by an accountant, who the registered email ID and portal access were controlled by an accountant, who the registered email ID and portal access were controlled by an accountant, who failed to inform the trustees of the intimation. It is further pleaded that the delay failed to inform the trustees of the intimation. It is further pleaded that the delay failed to inform the trustees of the intimation. It is further pleaded that the delay was occasioned by late discovery o was occasioned by late discovery of the intimation, disruption caused by COVID f the intimation, disruption caused by COVID- 19, and subsequent knowledge of the demand through another matter. Reliance 19, and subsequent knowledge of the demand through another matter. Reliance 19, and subsequent knowledge of the demand through another matter. Reliance is placed on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's is placed on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's suo-motu extension orders and CBDT motu extension orders and CBDT circulars. 4.1.2. I have carefully examined the application 4.1.2. I have carefully examined the application for condonation of delay filed by for condonation of delay filed by the appellant along with the explanations furnished in support thereof and the the appellant along with the explanations furnished in support thereof and the the appellant along with the explanations furnished in support thereof and the judicial precedents relied upon. The material facts are not in dispute. The judicial precedents relied upon. The material facts are not in dispute. The judicial precedents relied upon. The material facts are not in dispute. The intimation under section 143(1) of the intimation under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act. 1961 for th tax Act. 1961 for the Assessment Year 2014-15 was issued and made available on the ITBA portal on 27.03.2017. 15 was issued and made available on the ITBA portal on 27.03.2017. 15 was issued and made available on the ITBA portal on 27.03.2017. in terms of the statutory provisions, the appellant was required to file an appeal in terms of the statutory provisions, the appellant was required to file an appeal in terms of the statutory provisions, the appellant was required to file an appeal within thirty days there the appeal has admittedly been filed only thereof, ie, on within thirty days there the appeal has admittedly been filed only thereof, ie, on within thirty days there the appeal has admittedly been filed only thereof, ie, on or before 25.04.2017. However, 11.03.2022. The appeal is thus delayed by 1801 or before 25.04.2017. However, 11.03.2022. The appeal is thus delayed by 1801 or before 25.04.2017. However, 11.03.2022. The appeal is thus delayed by 1801 only on 31 days, computed from 26.04.2017 31.03.2022 The delay is neither only on 31 days, computed from 26.04.2017 31.03.2022 The delay is neither only on 31 days, computed from 26.04.2017 31.03.2022 The delay is neither marginal nor technical in nature but is an extraordinarily long and inordinate marginal nor technical in nature but is an extraordinarily long and inordinate marginal nor technical in nature but is an extraordinarily long and inordinate delay extending to almost delay extending to almost five years 4.1.3. At the outset it is pertinent to note that the provisions relating to limitation 4.1.3. At the outset it is pertinent to note that the provisions relating to limitation 4.1.3. At the outset it is pertinent to note that the provisions relating to limitation are founded on sound public policy. They are intended to bring finality to are founded on sound public policy. They are intended to bring finality to are founded on sound public policy. They are intended to bring finality to proceedings, ensure certainty in legal relations, an proceedings, ensure certainty in legal relations, and prevent resurrection of sta d prevent resurrection of stale claims. The right to appeal is not an inherent or natural right but a statutory right, claims. The right to appeal is not an inherent or natural right but a statutory right, claims. The right to appeal is not an inherent or natural right but a statutory right, which must be exercised strictly in accordance with the conditions prescribed by which must be exercised strictly in accordance with the conditions prescribed by which must be exercised strictly in accordance with the conditions prescribed by the statute, including the limitation period. Where an appeal is filed beyond the the statute, including the limitation period. Where an appeal is filed beyond the the statute, including the limitation period. Where an appeal is filed beyond the prescribed time, the statute scribed time, the statute casts a clear and heavy burden upon the appellant to clear and heavy burden upon the appellant to establish "sufficient cause" for the entire period of delay. In cases of such establish "sufficient cause" for the entire period of delay. In cases of such establish "sufficient cause" for the entire period of delay. In cases of such extraordinary delay, the burden becomes correspondingly heavier and cannot be extraordinary delay, the burden becomes correspondingly heavier and extraordinary delay, the burden becomes correspondingly heavier and discharged by vague, discharged by vague, general, or unsubstantiated assertions. . 4.1.4. In the present case, the delay of 1801 days places a substantial onus on 4.1.4. In the present case, the delay of 1801 days places a substantial onus on 4.1.4. In the present case, the delay of 1801 days places a substantial onus on the appellant to demonstrate a clear, cogent, and convincing explanation covering the appellant to demonstrate a clear, cogent, and convincing explanation covering the appellant to demonstrate a clear, cogent, and convincing explanation covering the entire span of delay. The primary reason advanced the entire span of delay. The primary reason advanced by the appellant is that by the appellant is that the registered email ID on the Income the registered email ID on the Income-tax portal was rebartiramanb@gmail.com, tax portal was rebartiramanb@gmail.com, which belonged to an accountant associated with M/s Govardhani Construction which belonged to an accountant associated with M/s Govardhani Construction which belonged to an accountant associated with M/s Govardhani Construction Co., and that the user ID and password were also with the said accountant. It is Co., and that the user ID and password were also with the said accountant. It Co., and that the user ID and password were also with the said accountant. It claimed that the intimation under section 143(1), though duly received on the said claimed that the intimation under section 143(1), though duly received on the said claimed that the intimation under section 143(1), though duly received on the said email ID, was not brought to the notice of the trustees, resulting in lack of email ID, was not brought to the notice of the trustees, resulting in lack of email ID, was not brought to the notice of the trustees, resulting in lack of awareness of the demand and consequent delay in filing the appeal. This awareness of the demand and consequent delay in filing the appeal. This awareness of the demand and consequent delay in filing the appeal. This explanation, howeve explanation, however, is wholly vague and generalized. No supporting material r, is wholly vague and generalized. No supporting material has been placed on record to substantiate these assertions. There is no affidavit has been placed on record to substantiate these assertions. There is no affidavit has been placed on record to substantiate these assertions. There is no affidavit from the accountant, no affidavit from the trustees, no internal correspondence, from the accountant, no affidavit from the trustees, no internal correspondence, from the accountant, no affidavit from the trustees, no internal correspondence, no contemporaneous record and no e no contemporaneous record and no evidence indicating when the appellant vidence indicating when the appellant allegedly became aware of the intimation or the demand. Significantly, no allegedly became aware of the intimation or the demand. Significantly, no allegedly became aware of the intimation or the demand. Significantly, no

Shree G Govardhani Sarvajanik 5 Seva Sanstha ITA Nos. s.1199, 1197, 1198 and 1200/MUM/2026

chronology-either day either day-to-day or even year-wise has been furnished to explain wise has been furnished to explain why no action whatsoeve why no action whatsoever was taken for nearly five years r was taken for nearly five years after the statutory limitation expired. 4.1.5. The explanation offered thus fails to address the most critical aspect, 4.1.5. The explanation offered thus fails to address the most critical aspect, 4.1.5. The explanation offered thus fails to address the most critical aspect, namely, the prolonged and unexplained inaction after the expiry of limitation. namely, the prolonged and unexplained inaction after the expiry of limitation. namely, the prolonged and unexplained inaction after the expiry of limitation. Merely stating that the accountant did not inform the trustees cannot, by itself, Merely stating that the accountant did not inform the trustees canno Merely stating that the accountant did not inform the trustees canno constitute sufficient cause, particularly when the assessee is expected to exercise constitute sufficient cause, particularly when the assessee is expected to exercise constitute sufficient cause, particularly when the assessee is expected to exercise due diligence in monitoring its statutory compliances and communications. The due diligence in monitoring its statutory compliances and communications. The due diligence in monitoring its statutory compliances and communications. The responsibility to track notices, intimations, and demands issued under the Act responsibility to track notices, intimations, and demands issued under the Act responsibility to track notices, intimations, and demands issued under the Act squarely rests upon the assessee and its authorized representatives. A Chartered quarely rests upon the assessee and its authorized representatives. A Chartered quarely rests upon the assessee and its authorized representatives. A Chartered Accountant or professional engaged for compliance is expected to act with Accountant or professional engaged for compliance is expected to act with Accountant or professional engaged for compliance is expected to act with reasonable care and diligence, and the assessee cannot be absolved of its reasonable care and diligence, and the assessee cannot be absolved of its reasonable care and diligence, and the assessee cannot be absolved of its statutory obligations by att statutory obligations by attributing prolonged inaction to internal oversight or ributing prolonged inaction to internal oversight or alleged failure of communication. alleged failure of communication. 4.1.6. The reliance placed by the appellant on the extension of limitation granted 4.1.6. The reliance placed by the appellant on the extension of limitation granted 4.1.6. The reliance placed by the appellant on the extension of limitation granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court during the COVID Hon'ble Supreme Court during the COVID-19 pandemic is also misplaced. 19 pandemic is also misplaced. The Supreme Court extended limitation with effect from 15.03 2020 till me Court extended limitation with effect from 15.03 2020 till me Court extended limitation with effect from 15.03 2020 till 28.02.2022 due to the extraordinary circumstances arising from the pandemic. 28.02.2022 due to the extraordinary circumstances arising from the pandemic. 28.02.2022 due to the extraordinary circumstances arising from the pandemic. However, it is an undisputed fact that a substantial portion of the delay in the However, it is an undisputed fact that a substantial portion of the delay in the However, it is an undisputed fact that a substantial portion of the delay in the present case had already occurred mu present case had already occurred much prior to 15.03.2020, during a period ch prior to 15.03.2020, during a period when there were no restrictions or impediments to filing appeals. The appellant when there were no restrictions or impediments to filing appeals. The appellant when there were no restrictions or impediments to filing appeals. The appellant has not demonstrated any unavoidable circumstance, legal disability, or event has not demonstrated any unavoidable circumstance, legal disability, or event has not demonstrated any unavoidable circumstance, legal disability, or event beyond its control operating during this pre beyond its control operating during this pre-pandemic peri pandemic period. The explanation therefore. does not satisfy the requirement of "sufficient cause" for the delay that therefore. does not satisfy the requirement of "sufficient cause" for the delay that therefore. does not satisfy the requirement of "sufficient cause" for the delay that had already crystallized well before the onset of COVID had already crystallized well before the onset of COVID-19 4.1.7. The explanation offered by the appellant is thus untenable. The demand 4.1.7. The explanation offered by the appellant is thus untenable. The demand 4.1.7. The explanation offered by the appellant is thus untenable. The demand notice was duly served in accordance with law, and ignorance of such demand, y served in accordance with law, and ignorance of such demand, y served in accordance with law, and ignorance of such demand, despite proper service, does not constitute sufficient cause. Acceptance of such despite proper service, does not constitute sufficient cause. Acceptance of such despite proper service, does not constitute sufficient cause. Acceptance of such pleas would defeat the discipline of limitation prescribed under the Act and would pleas would defeat the discipline of limitation prescribed under the Act and would pleas would defeat the discipline of limitation prescribed under the Act and would open the floodgates for belat open the floodgates for belated appeals on the ground of mere oversight Singh ed appeals on the ground of mere oversight Singh (Dead) vs. Jagdish Singh & Ors. has authoritatively held that the law of limitation (Dead) vs. Jagdish Singh & Ors. has authoritatively held that the law of limitation (Dead) vs. Jagdish Singh & Ors. has authoritatively held that the law of limitation may lack of awareness. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balwant harshly affect a may lack of awareness. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balwant harshly affect a may lack of awareness. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balwant harshly affect a particular party but must be applied with all particular party but must be applied with all its rigour when the statute so its rigour when the statute so prescribes, and that courts have no power to extend limitation on equitable prescribes, and that courts have no power to extend limitation on equitable prescribes, and that courts have no power to extend limitation on equitable grounds. The Court further clarified that the expression "sufficient cause" must be grounds. The Court further clarified that the expression "sufficient cause" must be grounds. The Court further clarified that the expression "sufficient cause" must be interpreted reasonably and that negligence, inaction, or lack of diligence cannot interpreted reasonably and that negligence, inaction, or lack of interpreted reasonably and that negligence, inaction, or lack of be condoned merely because they are pleaded as bona fide. These principles be condoned merely because they are pleaded as bona fide. These principles be condoned merely because they are pleaded as bona fide. These principles apply pari materia to section 249(3) of the Income apply pari materia to section 249(3) of the Income-tax Act, which is analogous to tax Act, which is analogous to section 5 of the Limitation Act section 5 of the Limitation Act 4.1.8. It is also relevant to note that section 3 4.1.8. It is also relevant to note that section 3 of the Limitation Act mandates of the Limitation Act mandates dismissal of proceedings instituted beyond limitation, while section 5 vests only a dismissal of proceedings instituted beyond limitation, while section 5 vests only a dismissal of proceedings instituted beyond limitation, while section 5 vests only a limited and conditional discretion to condone delay upon sufficient cause being limited and conditional discretion to condone delay upon sufficient cause being limited and conditional discretion to condone delay upon sufficient cause being

Shree G Govardhani Sarvajanik 6 Seva Sanstha ITA Nos. s.1199, 1197, 1198 and 1200/MUM/2026

shown. The power under section 249(3) of the Act is therefore not automatic but is shown. The power under section 249(3) of the Act is therefore shown. The power under section 249(3) of the Act is therefore circumscribed by strict statutory requirements. In the present case, the appellant circumscribed by strict statutory requirements. In the present case, the appellant circumscribed by strict statutory requirements. In the present case, the appellant has failed to establish any circumstance that could be regarded as unavoidable has failed to establish any circumstance that could be regarded as unavoidable has failed to establish any circumstance that could be regarded as unavoidable or beyond its control. What emerges instead is a clear case of prolonged inaction or beyond its control. What emerges instead is a clear case of prolonged or beyond its control. What emerges instead is a clear case of prolonged and lack of due diligence which cannot be rewarded by condoning an and lack of due diligence which cannot be rewarded by condoning an and lack of due diligence which cannot be rewarded by condoning an extraordinary delay. extraordinary delay. 4.1.9. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Dabra vs. Pyare Ram & Ors 4.1.9. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Dabra vs. Pyare Ram & Ors 4.1.9. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Dabra vs. Pyare Ram & Ors declined to condone a delay of 254 days on the ground that the reasons declined to condone a delay of 254 days on the ground that the reasons declined to condone a delay of 254 days on the ground that the reasons furnished did not meet the threshold of "sufficient cause". If a delay of 254 days did not meet the threshold of "sufficient cause". If a delay of 254 days did not meet the threshold of "sufficient cause". If a delay of 254 days was found to be unjustified in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, an was found to be unjustified in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, an was found to be unjustified in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, an inordinate delay of 1801 days, supported only by a general plea of oversight and inordinate delay of 1801 days, supported only by a general plea of oversight and inordinate delay of 1801 days, supported only by a general plea of oversight and lack of awareness, cannot lack of awareness, cannot be condoned on any judicially sustainable ground. The be condoned on any judicially sustainable ground. The judicial precedents relied upon by the appellant, including decisions where longer judicial precedents relied upon by the appellant, including decisions where longer judicial precedents relied upon by the appellant, including decisions where longer delays were condoned, are clearly distinguishable on facts. In those cases, the delays were condoned, are clearly distinguishable on facts. In those cases, the delays were condoned, are clearly distinguishable on facts. In those cases, the courts found specific, bona fide, and courts found specific, bona fide, and well-documented reasons, supported by documented reasons, supported by evidence on record. In contrast, the present case is marked by absence of evidence on record. In contrast, the present case is marked by absence of evidence on record. In contrast, the present case is marked by absence of supporting material, lack of a detailed chronology, no explanation for prolonged supporting material, lack of a detailed chronology, no explanation for prolonged supporting material, lack of a detailed chronology, no explanation for prolonged silence after expiry of limitation, and no material to demonstrate reasonable silence after expiry of limitation, and no material to demonstr silence after expiry of limitation, and no material to demonstr diligence on the part of the appellant. diligence on the part of the appellant. 4.1.10 The judicial precedents relied upon by the appellant, including decisions The judicial precedents relied upon by the appellant, including decisions The judicial precedents relied upon by the appellant, including decisions where longer delays were condoned, are clearly distinguishable on facts in those where longer delays were condoned, are clearly distinguishable on facts in those where longer delays were condoned, are clearly distinguishable on facts in those cases, the courts found specific, bona cases, the courts found specific, bona fide, and well-documented reasons documented reasons supported by evidence on record. In contrast, the present case is marked by supported by evidence on record. In contrast, the present case is marked by supported by evidence on record. In contrast, the present case is marked by absence of supporting material, lack of a detailed chronology, no explanation for absence of supporting material, lack of a detailed chronology, no explanation for absence of supporting material, lack of a detailed chronology, no explanation for prolonged silence after expiry of limitation, and no material to demonstrate prolonged silence after expiry of limitation, and no material to prolonged silence after expiry of limitation, and no material to reasonable diligence. reasonable diligence. 4.1.11. It is well settled that condonation of delay is not a matter of precedent- 4.1.11. It is well settled that condonation of delay is not a matter of precedent 4.1.11. It is well settled that condonation of delay is not a matter of precedent counting but of factual satisfaction in each individual case. Decisions condoning counting but of factual satisfaction in each individual case. Decisions condoning counting but of factual satisfaction in each individual case. Decisions condoning delay in other matters do not create a blanket entitlemen delay in other matters do not create a blanket entitlement, particularly where the t, particularly where the facts disclose negligence and indifference to statutory timelines. The explanation facts disclose negligence and indifference to statutory timelines. The explanation facts disclose negligence and indifference to statutory timelines. The explanation offered by the appellant, though presented in a mild and humane manner, falls offered by the appellant, though presented in a mild and humane manner, falls offered by the appellant, though presented in a mild and humane manner, falls significantly short of the standard of "sufficient cause required under section significantly short of the standard of "sufficient cause required und significantly short of the standard of "sufficient cause required und 249(3) of the Act. Acceptance of such explanations would render the law of 249(3) of the Act. Acceptance of such explanations would render the law of 249(3) of the Act. Acceptance of such explanations would render the law of limitation otiose and defeat the legislative intent behind prescribed timelines. limitation otiose and defeat the legislative intent behind prescribed timelines. limitation otiose and defeat the legislative intent behind prescribed timelines. 4.1.12. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above and respectfully following 4.1.12. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above and respectfully following 4.1.12. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions referred to laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions referred to laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions referred to hereinabove, the delay in filing the appeal is not condoned. Consequently, hereinabove, the delay in filing the appeal is not condoned. Consequently, hereinabove, the delay in filing the appeal is not condoned. Consequently, without entering into the merits of the case, the application for condonation of without entering into the merits of the case, the application for condonation of without entering into the merits of the case, the application for condonation of delay of 1801 days is rejected delay of 1801 days is rejected and the appeal filed by the appellant is and the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.”

Shree G Govardhani Sarvajanik 7 Seva Sanstha ITA Nos. s.1199, 1197, 1198 and 1200/MUM/2026

Shree G Govardhani Sarvajanik 8 Seva Sanstha ITA Nos. s.1199, 1197, 1198 and 1200/MUM/2026

an opportunity to substantiate its an opportunity to substantiate its explanation with evidence, the explanation with evidence, the ends of justice would be better served by affording such opportunity ends of justice would be better served by affording such opportunity ends of justice would be better served by affording such opportunity rather than foreclosing the matter on technical grounds. rather than foreclosing the matter on technical grounds. rather than foreclosing the matter on technical grounds.

5.2 Accordingly, in the interest of substantial justice, we set aside Accordingly, in the interest of substantial justice, we set aside Accordingly, in the interest of substantial justice, we set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file the impugned order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file the impugned order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for fresh adjudication on the issue of condonation of delay. The for fresh adjudication on the issue of condonation of delay. The for fresh adjudication on the issue of condonation of delay. The assessee shall furnish all necessary documentary evidence, assessee shall furnish all necessary documentary evidence assessee shall furnish all necessary documentary evidence including affidavits and supporting records, to substantiate the including affidavits and supporting records, to substantiate the including affidavits and supporting records, to substantiate the reasons for delay. The CIT(A) shall consider the same and decide reasons for delay. The CIT(A) shall consider the same and decide reasons for delay. The CIT(A) shall consider the same and decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after providing adequate the issue afresh in accordance with law after providing adequate the issue afresh in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard. opportunity of being heard.

5.3 In the event the delay is In the event the delay is condoned, the CIT(A) shall thereafter condoned, the CIT(A) shall thereafter proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in accordance with law. proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in accordance with law. proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in accordance with law.

Shree G Govardhani Sarvajanik 9 Seva Sanstha ITA Nos. s.1199, 1197, 1198 and 1200/MUM/2026

Order pronounced in Order pronounced in the open Court on 05/ /05/2026.

Sd/- - Sd/ Sd/- (ANIKESH BENERJEE) (ANIKESH BENERJEE (OM PRAKASH KANT OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated:05/05/2026 M. Ranganath Vittal , Sr. P.S. M. Ranganath Vittal , Sr. P.S.

Copy of the Order forwarded to Copy of the Order forwarded to :