M/S. PRABHA SAMAJIK SHAIKSHANIK MAHILA MANDAL ,MUMBAI V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

ITA 2442/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by M/s. Prabha Samajik Shaikshanik Mahila Mandal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai, which were consolidated due to the common issues involved. The primary contention was the rejection of the assessee's application for registration, attributed to non-compliance with document requests from the CIT(Exemptions). The Tribunal, after hearing the arguments and considering the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, decided to condone the delay in filing the appeals and restore the matter to the CIT(Exemptions) for a decision on merits, subject to the condition of a monetary deposit to the Prime Minister's relief funds.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 712184 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Land Acquisition Collector V MSG Kitji and others AIR 1987 page 1353 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R.A. DHYANI
• Assessee Lawyers: ROHAN PAI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2442 & 2443/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year : N.A) M/s. Prabha Samajik Shaikshanik Mahila Mandal Room no. 175 3/3 Panchsheel Nagar No. 2, Amar Mahal Chembur, Mumbai-400 089. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), 601, 6th Floor, Cumballa Hill MTNL TE Building, Peddar Road, DR Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai-400089. PAN/GIR No. AACAP2131Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri. Rohan Pai Revenue by Mr. R. A. Dhyani Date of Hearing 08/07/2025 Date of Pronouncement 24/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER SANDEEP GOSAIN(J.M): This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions), Mumbai dated 13.08.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”]. Printed from counselvise.com ITA no. 2442 & 2443/MUM/2025 M/s. Prabha Samajik Shaikshanik Mahila Mandal 2 Since all the issues involved in these two appeals are common and identical, therefore, they have been clubbed, heard together and consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. I shall take ITA No. 2442/Mum/2025, as lead case and facts narrated therein. ITA No. 2442/Mum/2025, 2. An application for seeking adjournment has been filed by the assessee. However, on going through the same, we notice that no plausible reason has been mentioned by the assessee for seeking adjournment. Therefore, we see no reasons for further adjournment and hence the said application stands dismissed. From the records we notice that there is a delay of 135 days in filing the present appeal. In this regard, an application seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee. 3. After having heard the arguments of both the parties on the application for seeking condonation of delay and considering the entire factual position as explained before us and also keeping in view the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Collector V MSG Kitji and others AIR 1987 page 1353 (SC), wherein it has been held that where substantial justice is pitied against technicalities of non-deliberate delay, then in that eventuality Printed from counselvise.com ITA no. 2442 & 2443/MUM/2025 M/s. Prabha Samajik Shaikshanik Mahila Mandal 3 substantial justice is to be preferred. In our view the principle of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance. Hence, considering the explanation put fourth by the assessee by justifiably and properly explaining the delay, which occurred in filing the appeal and construing the expression 'sufficient cause' liberally, we condone the delay in filing the present appeal before us and consequently the delay is condoned and the appeal is registered to be heard on merits. 4. From the records we noticed that the application for seeking registration by the assessee was rejected on the ground that assessee could not comply with the notices issued by CIT(Exemptions) for furnishing the required documents. 5. Although both the parties have put fourth their respective submissions, but be that as it may and without going into the merits of the subject matter we are of the view that interest of justice would be met in case, the lis between the parties is decided on merits after providing fair opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Therefore, considering the said principles in mind, we restore the matter back to the file of the CIT(Exemptions) for deciding it afresh on merits after providing one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee, subject to cost of Rs. 2000 to be deposited by the assessee in Prime Minster relief funds and copy of receipts regarding deposit of the said amount be placed on the file of Ld. CIT(Exemptions) within 15 days from the date of the receipt of Printed from counselvise.com ITA no. 2442 & 2443/MUM/2025 M/s. Prabha Samajik Shaikshanik Mahila Mandal 4 this order. Thereafter CIT(Exemptions) shall decide the issue afresh. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on ground and shall be corporative during the grounds of the proceeding. 6. Before parting, we make it clear, that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of CIT(E) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by CIT(Exemptions) independently in accordance with law. ITA No. 2443/M/2025 7. As the facts and circumstances in these appeals are identical to ITA No. 2443/Mum/2025 (except variance in figures) and the decision rendered in above paragraph would apply mutatis mutandis for these appeals also. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of the present appeals also stands allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on open court 24.07.2025. Sd/- (PRABHASH SHANKAR) Sd/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 24/07/2025 Printed from counselvise.com ITA no. 2442 & 2443/MUM/2025 M/s. Prabha Samajik Shaikshanik Mahila Mandal 5 Anandi Nambi, Steno Copy of the Order forwarded to: BY ORDER, (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// Printed from counselvise.com "