AJINKYATARA SAHKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,KOPER KHAIRANE V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 28(1)(1), VASHI

ITA 3292/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Ajinkyatara Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit, a cooperative society, which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that rejected their appeal on the grounds of limitation without considering the merits. The society had claimed a deduction under section 80P of the Income-tax Act, which was initially rejected by the Assessing Officer, leading to an increased taxable income. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to a significant delay in filing, attributed partly to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal considered the Supreme Court's decision on the extension of limitation due to the pandemic and decided to remand the case for a fresh evaluation on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 783679 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 08-05-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (2022) 441 ITR 722 (SC), Rajendrakumar Maneklal Shah (HUF) vs CIT 213 ITR 715
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961, Maharashtra Co-operative Societies201960
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURENDRA MOHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: SUSHANT ALME
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 12

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MISS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A No.3292/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) Ajinkyatara Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit, SS-3/319, Secor 06, Navi Mumbai-400 709 PAN: AACAA9183F vs Income-tax Officer Ward-28(1)(1), Mumbai Tower N.06, Vashi Railway Station Building, Navi Mumbai-400 709 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Sushant Alme Respondent by : Shri Surendra Mohan (SR.DR.) Date of hearing : 06/11/2025 Date of pronouncement : 10/11/2025 O R D E R Per Shri Anikesh Banerjee (JM): The instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) / Addl / JCIT(A)-2, Bangalore [(for brevity, ‘Ld.CIT(A)’] passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) for assessment year 2019-20, date of order 11/03/2025. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Central Processing Centre (CPC), Bengaluru (for brevity, the “Ld.AO”) passed u/s 143(1) of the Act, date of order 15/06/2020. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.3292/Mum/2025 Ajinkyatara Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit 2. We heard the rival submissions, considered the documents available on the record. The assessee is a co-operative society and registered under Maharashtra Co-operative Societies’ Act, 1960 and classified as ‘Resources Society’ u/s 12 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies’ Act, 1960. The assessee is providing credit facility to its members and also earned interest from the investment in co-operative banks. During the impugned assessment year, the assessee declared total income at Rs.6,71,670/- after claiming deduction of Rs.45,28,603/- u/ 80P of the Act. As a whole, the assessee’s income of Rs.52,00,274/- is derived from providing credit facility to its members and interest and dividend received from investment in co- operative bank. The Ld.AO, during processing of return rejected the claim u/s 80P of the Act and increased the total income to Rs.45,38,603/-. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 1685 delays. The delay was duly explained before the Ld. CIT(A). But the Ld.CIT(A) rejected the appeal on the ground of limitation but not on merit. Being aggrieved, assessee filed an appeal before us. 3. The Ld.AR stated that the return was processed u/s 143(1) on dated 15/06/2020 and due to Covid Pandemic, the appeal is filing in delay before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR argued that part of the delay is due to the COVID Pandemic situation which is covered by the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Cognizance for Extension of Limitation reported in (2022) 441 ITR 722 (SC) dated 10th January 2022. Further, the assessee has delayed in filing appeal and the reasons were duly explained before the CIT(A). Considering this, the Ld.AR prayed for setting aside the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) and prayed for condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.3292/Mum/2025 Ajinkyatara Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit 4. The Ld.DR argued, but related to condonation of delay, has not made any strong objection. The Ld.DR stands in favour of the order of the revenue authorities. 5. In our considered view, we find that the asessee’s return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 15/06/2020 and the appeal was filed on dated 25/02/2025. We find that the assessee has filed the appeal with a delay of 1685 days before the Ld. CIT(A). The delay in filing the appeal was duly explained by the assessee. The Part of the delay is covered by the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Cognizance for Extension of Limitation reported in (2022) 441 ITR 722 (SC) dated 10th January 2022. The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the appeal on the technical ground of absence of sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Respectful reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rajendrakumar Maneklal Shah (HUF) vs CIT 213 ITR 715, which supports the proposition that procedural delays, when reasonably explained, should not defeat substantive justice. We restore the appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Accordingly, we direct the assessee to submit the Affidavit before the Ld. CIT(A) by explaining the delay in filing appeal before 1st appellate authority. The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to reconsider the delay in lenient approach and to adjudicate the matter afresh by passing a reasoned and speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee shall be granted a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the remanded proceedings. Simultaneously, the assessee is expected to act diligently and extend full cooperation to ensure expeditious disposal of the appeal. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.3292/Mum/2025 Ajinkyatara Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.3292/Mum/2025 is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 10th November 2025 Sd/- sd/- (PADMAVATHY S) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, िदनांक/Dated: 10/11/2025 Pavanan Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ /The Appellant , 2. ितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु\u0014 CIT 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., मुंबई/DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 5. गाड\u0019 फाइल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar), ITAT, MUMBAI Printed from counselvise.com "