GLOBAL EDUCATION TRUST,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEM), WARD-1(3), MUMBAI

ITA 3463/MUM/2025

AI Insights

Global Education Trust challenged the order of the CIT(A), Visakhapatnam, which dismissed their appeal on the grounds of limitation. The Trust had filed their Return of Income for the assessment year 2020-21, claiming a nil income after declaring a significant application of income. The CPC, Bangalore, denied exemption under section 10(11) due to the delay in filing Form 10B. The Trust argued that the delay was due to administrative weaknesses and health issues during the post-COVID period. The Tribunal considered the circumstances, including the serious ailment of the Trust's accountant and the lack of proper management during the COVID-19 period, and decided to condone the delay, emphasizing a liberal and justice-oriented approach.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 834323 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 17-05-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Basawaraj and Anr. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ramlal Motilal and Chotelal vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd, Aditya Sapru vs. ACIT, Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and Ors.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARUN KANTI DATTA
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAKASH JHUNJHUNWALA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Period of limitation
• Section: 11; 10B

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI Before Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’ble President & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Hon’ble Accountant Member ITA No.3463/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year : 2020-21) Global Education Trust, 9, 1st Floor, Brijwasi Building Sonawala Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai 400 063. PAN : AAATG8496J Vs. ITO (Exemption) Ward 1(3), Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala Respondent By : Shri Arun Kanti Datta Date of Hearing : 20.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 03.02.2026 O R D E R Per Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, President: By this appeal the appellant-assessee is challenging the order dated 31.03.2025 passed by CIT(A), Visakhapatnam, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant on the ground of limitation. The appeal relates to assessment year 2020-21. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a Trust. The appellant filed its Return of Income (RoI) for the relevant assessment year in ITR-7 on 15.02.2021 which was the extended due date. Subsequently, the assessee revised its return on 15.03.2021 which was accompanied by the Audit Report Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA 3463/MUM/2025 Global Education Trust in Form 10B of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short). The appellant had declared ‘nil’ income for the relevant year after claiming a sum of Rs.11,46,35,679-/ as application of income. The CPC, Bangalore had refused to grant exemption vide intimation dated 24.12.2021 under section 10(11) inter alia on the ground of the delay in filing Form 10B. 3. According to the appellant, the physical copy of the intimation was never served on it. A copy was sent on e-mail [e-mail] which according to the Affidavit filed by Sanjay N Salunkhe , Managing Trustee of the appellant, was the email ID of his parent company viz., M/s. Jaro Institute of Technology Management and Research Ltd. As per the Affidavit dated 03.10.2025 filed by Mr. Sanjay Salunkhe, the Accountant of the said company inadvertently did not inform about the receipt of intimation dated 24.12.2021 under section 143(1) of the Act. It was also contended that during the relevant post Covid period, the administration of the trust was weak in terms of the legal provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and there was lack of proper advice in respect of filing of Form 10B. Mr. Sanjay Salunkhe has also claimed in his Affidavit that his elder brother Shri Rajendra N Salunkhe, aged 70 years old, who was handling accounts and tax matters of the Trust, suffered from serious illness- ‘Anterolisthesis’ for a substantial period of time and it was all these circumstances that resulted into a delay of 1478 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). 4. It is necessary to note that the CIT(A) has found that the actual delay was of 1115 days and after giving the benefit of the exclusion provided by the Supreme Court vide order dated 10.01.2022 in Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022 the resultant day was about 1079 days. The learned CIT(A) has however, refused to condone the delay on the ground that the appellant has Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA 3463/MUM/2025 Global Education Trust not established sufficient cause. It is this order which is subject matter of challenge in this appeal. 5. We have heard parties. Perused record. 6. It is submitted by learned AR that during the covid and immediately thereafter in the post-covid period the management of the Trust was weak. He submitted that Shri Rajendra N Salunkhe, who was looking after the accounts and tax matters was suffering from a serious ailment. He also pointed out that the physical copy of the intimation dated 24.12.2021 was not served on the appellant. The email ID on which the notice was sent was that of Shri Sanjay Salunkhe’s parent company. He submitted that the appellant does not stand to gain by filing the appeal late. He submitted that the appellant has a very good case on merits, as mere delay in filing Form 10B, which is essentially procedural in nature, cannot result into denial of exemption under section 11 of the Act. 7. The ld. DR has supported the impugned order. It is submitted that there is an inordinate delay in filing of appeal which cannot be condoned. It is submitted that the reason given is general in nature and cannot be accepted. The ld. DR has filed written submissions dated 26.09.2025 setting out certain decisions including Basawaraj and Anr. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer (AIR 2014 SC 746); Ramlal Motilal and Chotelal vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd (AIR 1962 SC 361) and Aditya Sapru vs. ACIT 176 taxmann.com 167. He submitted that there is a clear negligence borne out of record and the delay does not deserve condonation. 8. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made. As noticed earlier, after giving benefit of the exclusion granted by the Supreme Court on account of the Covid-19 period, the net delay is said to be 1079 days. Section 249(3) of the Act confers power on the First Appellate Authority to admit Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA 3463/MUM/2025 Global Education Trust an appeal after expiry of period of limitation if he is satisfied that the appellant has made out sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within period of limitation. It is well settled that the quantum of delay is not material. What is material is the explanation and the circumstances which led to the delay and whether they make out any sufficient cause. The said question depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 9. The Supreme Court in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and Ors., in Civil Appeal reported in Manu SC/0932/2013, after taking a survey of several decisions holding the field, has culled out principles which are germane while considering the prayer for condonation of delay. The principles set out in para 15 and 16 of the judgment (as reported in Manupatra) are as under: “15. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be culled out are: (i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. (ii) The terms \"sufficient cause\" should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact-situation. (iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis. (iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of. (v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact. Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA 3463/MUM/2025 Global Education Trust (vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice. (vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsule the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play. (viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation. (ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach. (x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation. (xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation. (xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinized and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception. (xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude. 16. To the aforesaid principles we may add some more guidelines taking note of the present day scenario. They are: (a) An application for condonation of delay should be drafted with careful concern and not in a half hazard manner harbouring the notion that the courts are required to condone delay on the bedrock of the principle that adjudication of a lis on merits is seminal to justice dispensation system. Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA 3463/MUM/2025 Global Education Trust (b) An application for condonation of delay should not be dealt with in a routine manner on the base of individual philosophy which is basically subjective. (c) Though no precise formula can be laid down regard being had to the concept of judicial discretion, yet a conscious effort for achieving consistency and collegiality of the adjudicatory system should be made as that is the ultimate institutional motto. (d) The increasing tendency to perceive delay as a non-serious matter and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a non-challant manner requires to be curbed, of course, within legal parameters.” 10. Coming to the present case, the reason shown as per the application and affidavit of Shri Sanjay Salunkhe is that during the Covid -19 period and immediately thereafter, there was lack of proper management in the Trust. His elder brother Shri Rajendra N Salunkhe, who was looking after the tax matters was also suffering from certain serious ailment. It is also claimed that earlier Chartered Accountant had stopped giving services and a new Chartered Accountant M/s. Mahesh & Co. were engaged, who ultimately filed the appeal along with application for condonation of delay. It is also contended that copy of the intimation dated 24.12.2021 was served only on the email id [e-mail], which is the email id of the parent company viz M/s. Jaro Institute of Technology Management and Research Ltd of Shri Sanjay Salunkhe, Managing Trustee of the appellant. It is necessary to note that a party does not stand to gain by approaching the court late and there is no presumption that the delay is intentional. 11. Although the merits of the challenge to the intimation are not strictly relevant at this stage, we find that the exemption is denied on account of delay in filing Form No.10B. We hasten to add that we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the appeal. Considering the over all circumstances, we find Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA 3463/MUM/2025 Global Education Trust that the delay deserves to be condoned. This would however, be subject to appropriate costs. Considering the overall circumstances, we find that the delay can be condoned subject to costs of Rs.50,000/- to the Prime Minister’s relief fund within three weeks. The payment of costs is a condition precedent for condonation of delay. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The delay in filing the appeal before the First Appellate Authority stands condoned. The appeal is restored to the file of the CIT(A) for disposal according to law. Ordered accordingly. Order pronounced in the open court on 3rd February,2026. Sd/- Sd/- [Prabhash Shankar] [Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PRESIDENT Mumbai, Dated : 3rd February, 2026. SA Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The PCIT, Mumbai. 4. The CIT 5. The DR, ‘G’ Bench, ITAT, Mumbai BY ORDER //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune Printed from counselvise.com "