ISHWARDAS SATYANARAYAN GUPTA,GOREGAON (WEST), MUMBAI. vs. ITO, WARD 41(3)(2), MUMBAI, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, मुंबई पीठ�, मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI BENCH: SMC BEFORE HON’BLE BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA 2944/MUM/2026 िनधा�रण वष�/Assmt. Year: 2013-14) Permanent Account Number: AEJPG5040F ITO, WARD 41(3)(2), ISHWARDAS SATYANARAYAN MUMBAI GUPTA KAUTILYA BHAVAN, B1002, MAHINDRA EMINENT, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX NEAR PATKAR COLLEGE, S V (BKC), BANDRA (EAST), Vs. ROAD, GOREGAON (WEST), MUMBAI MUMBAI., MUMBAI-400104, MUMBAI-400051, MAHARASHTRA MAHARASHTRA (��थ� Respondent) (अपीलाथ� Appellant)

िनधा�रती �ारा/Assessee represented by: Shri Rajesh S. Shah, AR राज� व �ारा/Revenue represented by: Smt. B. Brahma Vidya, Sr. DR

सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusion of hearing: 13-May-2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement: 14-May-2026 आदेश / ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order passed by NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter to as the “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 20/02/2026, for A.Y. 2013-14 on the following grounds of appeal:-

“1) a) On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing of an appeal though there were reasonable causes for not filing appeal in time before the CIT(A). b) On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the detailed submission was made during the appellate proceedings and the learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the circumstances which lead to the delay in filing of an appeal. c) On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred dismissing the appeal in limine without adjudicating the grounds of appeal. 2) The learned CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the Grounds of Appeal which were taken before the first appellate authority. The Grounds were under: a) The assessing Officer erred in disallowing Interest paid on Unsecured Loans of Rs.25,18,508/- The appellant prays that the addition made to income of Rs.25,18,508/- be deleted. b) On facts and circumstances of the case and in law the AO ought to have allowed the interest paid on loans against the Business Income which has been declared by way of interest from Partnership Firm in which the appellant is a partner. c) On facts and circumstances of the case and in law the AO erred in not allowing deduction u/s.80TTA of Rs.8,787. d) On facts and circumstances of the case and in law the AO erred in not allowing deduction u/s.80G to the extend allowable on account of increased in Income. 3) The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, cancel and OR substitute any of the grounds of the appeal.”

2.1. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate and the assessee was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed period. It was submitted that the affidavit filed by the assessee explaining the delay was not properly appreciated by the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld. AR, therefore, prayed that the delay may kindly be condoned and the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

2.2. Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A).

We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in light of the records placed before this Tribunal.

3.1. We further note that the contents of the affidavit have neither been disproved nor controverted by bringing any material on record by the Revenue. In our considered opinion, the explanation furnished by the assessee constitutes a reasonable and sufficient cause within the meaning of section 249(3) of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) has held that a liberal approach should be adopted while considering applications for condonation of delay so as to advance substantial justice. Similarly, in the case of N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that length of delay is not material and acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion.

3.2. We also derive support from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Improvement Trust, Ludhiana v. Ujagar Singh reported in (2010) 6 SCC 786 wherein it was held that unless mala fides or deliberate negligence are apparent, courts should lean towards deciding matters on merits instead of shutting the doors on technical considerations. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi reported in (1979) 118 ITR 507 (SC) held that a litigant should not ordinarily suffer for the fault or lapse on the part of the counsel or authorised representative.

3.3. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, the explanation furnished in the affidavit and the judicial precedents discussed hereinabove, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed time. Accordingly, the delay of 96 days in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) is condoned in the interest of substantial justice.

3.4. Since the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed in limine by the Ld.CIT(A) without adjudicating the issues on merits, we deem it fit and proper, in the interest of substantial justice, to restore the matter to the file of the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) is directed to adjudicate the appeal afresh on merits in accordance with law after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to extend full co- operation and furnish the requisite details/documents as may be called for by the Ld.CIT(A).

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 14th May, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- ARUN KHODPIA BEENA PILLAI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai Dated: 14/05/2026 SC. Sr. P.S.

Copy to: ISHWARDAS SATYANARAYAN GUPTA, B1002, MAHINDRA EMINENT, NEAR PATKAR COLLEGE, S V ROAD, 1 GOREGAON (WEST), MUMBAI., MUMBAI-400104, MAHARASHTRA ITO, WARD 41(3)(2), MUMBAI, KAUTILYA BHAVAN, BANDRA KURLA 2 COMPLEX (BKC), BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI, MUMBAI-400051, MAHARASHTRA 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE