ITO EXEMPTION WARD, 2(4), MUMBAI V. THE GOREGAON EDUCATION SOCIETY, MUMBAI

MA 231/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves a Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue against the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, which had previously allowed the appeal of the assessee, The Goregaon Education Society. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal's decision was made without proper consideration of the binding nature of the Board's Circulars and the authority of CIT (Exemptions) to condone delays in filing specific forms. However, the Tribunal found the Miscellaneous Application to be barred by limitation, as it was filed beyond the permissible time frame, and thus did not entertain the merits of the Revenue's arguments.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 788127 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 09-09-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Leena Power Tech Engineers Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIRABHADRA MAHAJAN
• Assessee Lawyers: MALAV P. SHETH
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Competent authority; Time period of passing order
• Section: 119(2)(b)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “G” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. No. 231/Mum/2025 (Arising out of ITA No. 5879/Mum/2024) Assessment Year : 2017-18 Income Tax Officer(E)-2(4), Room No. 609, 6th Floor, MTNL Telephone Exchange Building, Cumballa Hills, Pedder Road, Mumbai-400026 vs. The Goregaon Education Society, 220, IB Patel Vidyalaya, Jawaharnagar, Road No. 1, Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400062 PAN : AAATT3200F (Applicant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Malav P. Sheth For Revenue : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 21-11-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 28-11-2025 O R D E R PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M : This is a Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue against the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No. 5879/Mum/2024, dt. 13-01-2025. 2. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that the Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the Revenue on 09-09-2025 and, therefore, the same is clearly barred by limitation as provided u/s. 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟). It was submitted that it is a settled position that the delay in filing the M.A. cannot be condoned by the Tribunal. Printed from counselvise.com 2 M.A. No. 231/Mum/2025 3. The Ld. DR has been heard, who relied on the M.A. filed by the Income Tax Officer(E)-2(4), Mumbai wherein it has been submitted that the Bench has allowed the appeal of the assessee, without appreciating that the Board‟s Circulars are also binding upon the assessee and CIT (Exemptions) is the competent authority to condone the delay in filing Forms 9A and 10 and assessee has neither filed the requisite form within the stipulated time nor filed any application u/s. 119(2)(b) of Rs. Before the CIT (Exemptions). It was accordingly submitted that the order so passed by the Coordinate Bench may be rectified. On the ld AR‟s contention that the misc. application so filed is barred by limitation, the ld DR couldn‟t controvert the said fact and submitted that he will call for the report from the AO as the reasons for delayed filing of misc. application. 4. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. As per the record, it is manifest that the miscellaneous Application has been filed by the Revenue u/s 254(2) on 09-09-2025 against the order pronounced by the Co-ordinate Bench in Court on 13-01-2025. As per Section 254(2), a rectification application has to be filed within six months from end of the month in which the order was passed and thus, the misc. application so filed has been filed belatedly and the same is clearly barred by limitation as provided u/s. 254(2) of the Act. The Tribunal has no power to condone the delay in filing the misc. application and thus, the matter relating to sufficient cause for the delay need not be gone into and the report of the AO as the Ld.DR seek to call for will not help the case of the Revenue. 5. Our view finds support from the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Leena Power Tech Engineers Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, in Writ Petition (L) No. 37437 of 2024, dt. 25-02-2025, wherein the relevant findings reads as under: Printed from counselvise.com 3 M.A. No. 231/Mum/2025 “9. The ITAT, in this case, by order dated 21 September 2021, rejected the Assessee’s appeal. The Petitioner claims that this order was communicated to the Petitioner on 17 November 2021. Accordingly, in Section 254(2), the limitation for filing a Miscellaneous Application under Section 254(2) expires on 31 May 2022. This Section provides that such an application for rectification must be filed within six months from the end of the month the order was passed. 10. The Miscellaneous Application invoking Section 254(2) was filed only on 26 August 2022, after an approximate three month delay. The ITAT, in the impugned order dated 03 November 2023, held that it had no jurisdiction to condone the delay. 11. Regarding the first contention based on the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order dated 10 January 2022, we agree with Mr Sharma that such a contention was never raised before the ITAT. Such a contention is not even mentioned in the Miscellaneous Application. Such a contention also finds no mention in the impugned order dated 03 November 2023. This argument is sought to be raised for the first time before this Court. 12. Still, we have considered the above argument. Paragraph 5(I) of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order directs that the period from 15 March 2020 to 28 February 2022 shall stand excluded for the purpose of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. Paragraph 5(II) clarifies that, consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 03 October 2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 01 March 2022. 13. In the facts of the present case, the Petitioner cannot claim any benefit of the above direction. This is because, even according to the Petitioner, the limitation period expired on 31 May 2022, i.e. beyond the period between 15 March 2020 and 28 February 2022. The Petitioner’s contention that the limitation in this matter would commence only from 01 March 2022 cannot be accepted. This is not what the order which the Petitioner relies upon says. 14. Therefore, even though the plea based on the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was never raised by the Petitioner before the ITAT, still, upon consideration of the same, we find that the same would not assist the Petitioner in the facts of the present case. 15. Insofar as the second contention is concerned, the issue of sufficient cause is not quite relevant. Section 254 of the IT Act does not contain any provision that enables the ITAT to condone a delay beyond 6 months. This is so held by the coordinate bench in Ram Baburao Salve (supra). 16. Given the above position, sufficient cause, if any, would be irrelevant. The ITAT has also not gone into the issue of sufficient cause but by relying on the decision of the Karnataka High Court Re. Karuturi Global Ltd. Vs. DCIT2 held that it has no power to condone the delay in entertaining an application under Section 254(2) of the IT Act. 17. Since the ITAT’s view aligns with that of our coordinate bench in Ram Baburao Salve (supra) and the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Re. Printed from counselvise.com 4 M.A. No. 231/Mum/2025 Karuturi Global Ltd. (supra), we see no good ground to interfere with the impugned order.” 6. In light of aforesaid discussion, the Miscellaneous Application so filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed as barred by limitation. Order pronounced in the open court on 28-11-2025 Sd/- Sd/- [RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN] [VIKRAM SINGH YADAV] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 28-11-2025 TNMM Copy to : 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT concerned 4. The D.R. ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard File. //By Order// //True Copy // Dy./Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "