CCI CHAMBERS CO-OP HSG SOC. LTD,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER-17(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3543/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals by CCI Chambers Co-op. HSG. SOC. Ltd. against orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2015-16. The primary issues in the appeals were the rejection of the assessee's appeals on the grounds of delay and the addition of income under Section 80P. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal found that the appeals were not filed with any delay and that the additions made were not in accordance with the law. The Tribunal directed a re-examination of the matter by the Assessing Officer.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 713052 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Other Referred Cases: T.S. Balaram's ITO v. Volkart Bros., CIT v. Keshri Metal Pvt. Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAVIN SALUNKHE
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAKASH JOTWANI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Period of limitation; Rectification of order
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H (SMC)” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 3542 & 3543/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2015-16 CCI Chambers Co-op. HSG. SOC. Ltd., Gr. Floor, CCI Chambers Soc. Dinshaw Wachha Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Vs. ITO-17(2)(1), Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400051. PAN NO. AAAJC 0006 E Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Prakash Jotwani Revenue by : Mr. Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 21/07/2025 Date of pronouncement : 30/07/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM These two appeals by the assessee are directed against two separate orders, both dated 09.10.2023, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment years 2013- 14 and 2015-16 respectively. As both appeals being connected with Printed from counselvise.com the single assessee, way of this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee in appeal for assessment year 2013-14 are reproduced as under: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law: Ground No. 1: Appeal di condonation of delay 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal (without adjudicating on the merits of the case), on the ground that the appeal is barred by limitation. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in alleging that the has filed an appeal on 16th June, 2016, with a delay of 67 days and without making an application for condonation of delay, although the appeal was filed on 21st April, 2016 (i.e. within 30 days from date of service i.e. 22nd March, 2016), which w the learned CIT(A) on Form No. 35 (which was submitted to the CIT(A)-28 along with other documents and hence there was no delay in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred i basis of an incorrect information pertaining to the date of institution of appeal, which has resulted in confirming a huge addition and unnecessary harassment to the Appellant and huge litigation costs to the Appellant. Without prejudice, on the merits of the case Ground No. 2: Addition of Rs. 51,20,000/ 1. The learned AO erred in making an addition of Rs. 51,20,000/- repairs and amenity fund by member. CCI Chambers ITA No. 3542 & 3543/MUM/2025 same were heard together and way of this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. The grounds raised by the assessee in appeal for assessment 14 are reproduced as under: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law: Ground No. 1: Appeal dismissed on account of condonation of delay 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal (without adjudicating on the merits of the case), on the ground that the appeal is barred by limitation. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in alleging that the has filed an appeal on 16th June, 2016, with a delay of 67 days and without making an application for condonation of delay, although the appeal was filed on 21st April, 2016 (i.e. within 30 days from date of service i.e. 22nd March, 2016), which was duly acknowledged by way of stamp by the learned CIT(A) on Form No. 35 (which was submitted to 28 along with other documents and hence there was no delay in filing the appeal before the first appellate 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on the basis of an incorrect information pertaining to the date of institution of appeal, which has resulted in confirming a huge addition and unnecessary harassment to the Appellant and huge litigation costs to the Appellant. ut prejudice, on the merits of the case Ground No. 2: Addition of Rs. 51,20,000/- 1. The learned AO erred in making an addition of Rs. being voluntary contribution to the building repairs and amenity fund by member. CCI Chambers Co-op. HSG. SOC. Ltd. 2 ITA No. 3542 & 3543/MUM/2025 same were heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. The grounds raised by the assessee in appeal for assessment On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law: smissed on account of 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal (without adjudicating on the merits of the case), on the 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in alleging that the Assessee has filed an appeal on 16th June, 2016, with a delay of 67 days and without making an application for condonation of delay, although the appeal was filed on 21st April, 2016 (i.e. within 30 days from date of service i.e. 22nd March, as duly acknowledged by way of stamp by the learned CIT(A) on Form No. 35 (which was submitted to 28 along with other documents and hence there was no delay in filing the appeal before the first appellate n dismissing the appeal on the basis of an incorrect information pertaining to the date of institution of appeal, which has resulted in confirming a huge addition and unnecessary harassment to the Appellant and huge litigation costs to the Appellant. 1. The learned AO erred in making an addition of Rs. being voluntary contribution to the building Printed from counselvise.com 2. The learned AO erred in consistency where the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in Appellant's own case for A.Y. 08 has decided this issue in favour of the Appellant. 3. The learned AO erred in not following the principles of mutuality which has been duly accepted by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of : i. Sind Co-op. Hag. Soc. Ltd. 317 ITR 47 (Bom HC) ii. Mittal Court Premises Co 414 and consequently erred in assessing the sum as 'Income from Other 3. We have heard the rival submissions advanced by the parties and carefully perused the material available on record. The principal grievance raised in Ground No. 1 of the appeal pertains to the rejection of the assessee’s appeal by the ground of delay of 67 days in filing the same, and the consequential refusal to condone such delay in the absence of an application for condonation. The learned counsel for the that there was, in fact, no delay in contended that the assessment order upon the assessee on 22.03.2016, and the appeal was filed in physical format before the jurisdictional CIT(A) on 21.04.2016, which was well within the prescrib The ld CIT(A) not admitted the appeal of the assessee for the reason that neither the assessee acknowledged the delay nor filed any CCI Chambers ITA No. 3542 & 3543/MUM/2025 2. The learned AO erred in not following the principles of consistency where the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in Appellant's own case for A.Y. 08-09 and 09 has decided this issue in favour of the Appellant. 3. The learned AO erred in not following the principles of lity which has been duly accepted by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of :- op. Hag. Soc. Ltd. 317 ITR 47 (Bom HC) ii. Mittal Court Premises Co-op. Soc. Ltd. (Bom HC) 320 ITR and consequently erred in assessing the sum as 'Income Sources'. We have heard the rival submissions advanced by the parties and carefully perused the material available on record. The principal grievance raised in Ground No. 1 of the appeal pertains to the rejection of the assessee’s appeal by the Ld. CIT(A) ground of delay of 67 days in filing the same, and the consequential refusal to condone such delay in the absence of an application for The learned counsel for the assessee had that there was, in fact, no delay in the filing of the appeal. It was contended that the assessment order dated 10/03/2016 on the assessee on 22.03.2016, and the appeal was filed in physical format before the jurisdictional CIT(A) on 21.04.2016, which was well within the prescribed period of limitation of 30 days. The ld CIT(A) not admitted the appeal of the assessee for the reason that neither the assessee acknowledged the delay nor filed any CCI Chambers Co-op. HSG. SOC. Ltd. 3 ITA No. 3542 & 3543/MUM/2025 not following the principles of consistency where the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate 09 and 09-10 3. The learned AO erred in not following the principles of lity which has been duly accepted by the op. Soc. Ltd. (Bom HC) 320 ITR and consequently erred in assessing the sum as 'Income We have heard the rival submissions advanced by the parties and carefully perused the material available on record. The principal grievance raised in Ground No. 1 of the appeal pertains to Ld. CIT(A) on the ground of delay of 67 days in filing the same, and the consequential refusal to condone such delay in the absence of an application for assessee had submitted the filing of the appeal. It was 10/03/2016 was served on the assessee on 22.03.2016, and the appeal was filed in physical format before the jurisdictional CIT(A) on 21.04.2016, ed period of limitation of 30 days. The ld CIT(A) not admitted the appeal of the assessee for the reason that neither the assessee acknowledged the delay nor filed any Printed from counselvise.com application for condonation of delay. however is reproduced as under: “7. In the present case the delay in filing the appeal is not explained by the appellant. before the CIT(A) was 21.04.2016. However, no such appeal was filed on that day. 7.1 It is not a case of an ordinar delay in filing this appeal could be sue moto condoned by me. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case when the assessee has NOT given any explanation for cause of delay, I am of the considered view that the that there exists a sufficient cause for the delay and consequently the delay of 67 days in filing the appeal cannot be condoned. 7.2 Thus, the delay is nothing but negligence and inaction on part of the appellant which co exercise of due care and attention. Lackadaisical approach in filling Form No. 35 and casual and non appeals before appellate authorities cannot be encouraged. There exists no reason for condoni appeal. So, there is no reason for condoning such a delay in this case. Considering above the delay is 3.1 It is further noticed that the Ld. CIT(A), in para 1 of the impugned order, observed that the appea 16.06.2016 before the tax(Appeals) and was later Centre (NFAC). The Ld. CIT(A) counted the period of delay from the date of the assessment order the assessee has placed reliance on a stamped copy of Form No. 35 bearing the date 21.04.2016 from the office of the jurisdictional CIT(A), in support of the contention that the appeal had been duly filed within the prescribed tim CCI Chambers ITA No. 3542 & 3543/MUM/2025 application for condonation of delay. The finding of the Ld. CIT(A) reproduced as under: “7. In the present case the delay in filing the appeal is not explained by the appellant. The due date of filing appeal before the CIT(A) was 21.04.2016. However, no such appeal was filed on that day. 7.1 It is not a case of an ordinary delay of a few days so that the delay in filing this appeal could be sue moto condoned by me. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case when the assessee has NOT given any explanation for cause of delay, I am of the considered view that the assessee has failed to establish that there exists a sufficient cause for the delay and consequently the delay of 67 days in filing the appeal cannot be 7.2 Thus, the delay is nothing but negligence and inaction on part of the appellant which could have been very well avoided by the exercise of due care and attention. Lackadaisical approach in filling Form No. 35 and casual and non-challant way of filing appeals before appellate authorities cannot be encouraged. There exists no reason for condoning the delay in filing the present appeal. So, there is no reason for condoning such a delay in this case. Considering above the delay is not condoned.” It is further noticed that the Ld. CIT(A), in para 1 of the impugned order, observed that the appeal was instituted on before the ld. jurisdictional Commissioner of income and was later migrated to the National Faceless Appeal The Ld. CIT(A) counted the period of delay from the date of the assessment order passed upto 16.06.2016. the assessee has placed reliance on a stamped copy of Form No. 35 bearing the date 21.04.2016 from the office of the jurisdictional CIT(A), in support of the contention that the appeal had been duly filed within the prescribed time. CCI Chambers Co-op. HSG. SOC. Ltd. 4 ITA No. 3542 & 3543/MUM/2025 The finding of the Ld. CIT(A) “7. In the present case the delay in filing the appeal is not The due date of filing appeal before the CIT(A) was 21.04.2016. However, no such appeal y delay of a few days so that the delay in filing this appeal could be sue moto condoned by me. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case when the assessee has NOT given any explanation for cause of delay, I am assessee has failed to establish that there exists a sufficient cause for the delay and consequently the delay of 67 days in filing the appeal cannot be 7.2 Thus, the delay is nothing but negligence and inaction on part uld have been very well avoided by the exercise of due care and attention. Lackadaisical approach in challant way of filing appeals before appellate authorities cannot be encouraged. There ng the delay in filing the present appeal. So, there is no reason for condoning such a delay in this It is further noticed that the Ld. CIT(A), in para 1 of the l was instituted on Commissioner of income- to the National Faceless Appeal The Ld. CIT(A) counted the period of delay from the pto 16.06.2016. However, the assessee has placed reliance on a stamped copy of Form No. 35 bearing the date 21.04.2016 from the office of the jurisdictional CIT(A), in support of the contention that the appeal had been duly Printed from counselvise.com 3.2 In our considered view, the question whether the appeal was filed within the period of limitation is essentially a question of fact which requires verification. of the assessment order wherein seal of the assessee’s society along with date has been submitted. assessment order dated 10/03/2016 was received For ready reference said under: 3.3 As regarding the date of the filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) in physical format CCI Chambers ITA No. 3542 & 3543/MUM/2025 In our considered view, the question whether the appeal was filed within the period of limitation is essentially a question of fact which requires verification. Before us, the assessee has filed a copy of the assessment order wherein seal of the assessee’s society along with date has been submitted. The assessee contended that assessment order dated 10/03/2016 was received on 22/03/2016. For ready reference said page of assessment order is reproduced as As regarding the date of the filing of the appeal before the Ld. in physical format, before us the assessee has filed a copy of CCI Chambers Co-op. HSG. SOC. Ltd. 5 ITA No. 3542 & 3543/MUM/2025 In our considered view, the question whether the appeal was filed within the period of limitation is essentially a question of fact Before us, the assessee has filed a copy of the assessment order wherein seal of the assessee’s society along The assessee contended that on 22/03/2016. is reproduced as As regarding the date of the filing of the appeal before the Ld. the assessee has filed a copy of Printed from counselvise.com the Form No. 35, wherein there is a stamp from the office of the L Commissioner of Income In view of both these photocopies verification by the Ld. 3.4 We also note that the assessee seeking a of delay, nor has the record been examined for ascertaining the actual date of filing and service of the assessment order. 3.5 In light of the above and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter for the purpose of verifying (i) the actual date of service of the assessment order on the assessee from the records of th Officer, and (ii) the date of receipt of Form No. 35 by the offi jurisdictional CIT(A). Thereafter, he shall decide the issue of condonation of delay if so required 3.6 It has also been submitted before us by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the appeal filed in physical format is still pending before the office of the CIT(A) has recorded that the said appeal has been mi NFAC. This fact of pendency of appeal filed in physical been explained by the assessee through an affidavit, and accordingly, the veracity of this claim shall also be verified by the Ld. CIT(A). CCI Chambers ITA No. 3542 & 3543/MUM/2025 wherein there is a stamp from the office of the L Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) bearing date as 21.04.2016. In view of both these photocopies of documents filed verification by the Ld. CIT(A). We also note that the Ld. CIT(A) has not issued any notice to the assessee seeking an explanation on the question of condonation of delay, nor has the record been examined for ascertaining the actual date of filing and service of the assessment order. In light of the above and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for the purpose of verifying (i) the actual date of service of the assessment order on the assessee from the records of th Officer, and (ii) the date of receipt of Form No. 35 by the offi jurisdictional CIT(A). Thereafter, he shall decide the issue of condonation of delay if so required. It has also been submitted before us by the Ld. Counsel for assessee that the appeal filed in physical format is still pending before the office of the ld jurisdictional CIT(A), whereas the Ld. CIT(A) has recorded that the said appeal has been mi NFAC. This fact of pendency of appeal filed in physical been explained by the assessee through an affidavit, and accordingly, the veracity of this claim shall also be verified by the CCI Chambers Co-op. HSG. SOC. Ltd. 6 ITA No. 3542 & 3543/MUM/2025 wherein there is a stamp from the office of the Ld. bearing date as 21.04.2016. filed, matter needs the Ld. CIT(A) has not issued any notice to n explanation on the question of condonation of delay, nor has the record been examined for ascertaining the actual date of filing and service of the assessment order. In light of the above and in the interest of justice, we deem it to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for the purpose of verifying (i) the actual date of service of the assessment order on the assessee from the records of the Assessing Officer, and (ii) the date of receipt of Form No. 35 by the office of the jurisdictional CIT(A). Thereafter, he shall decide the issue of It has also been submitted before us by the Ld. Counsel for assessee that the appeal filed in physical format is still pending CIT(A), whereas the Ld. CIT(A) has recorded that the said appeal has been migrated to the NFAC. This fact of pendency of appeal filed in physical format has been explained by the assessee through an affidavit, and accordingly, the veracity of this claim shall also be verified by the Printed from counselvise.com 3.7 Upon such verification, if it is found that the appeal had indeed been filed within the period of proceed to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law, treating the appeal filed either in physical format or electronically as valid. However, in the event the appeal is found to have been filed belatedly, the assessee shall be granted an opportunity to file an appropriate application for condonation of delay along with a supporting affidavit. The Ld. CIT(A) shall thereafter adjudicate the issue of condonation of delay in accordance with law and proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits if the delay is condoned. No. 1 raised in the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 4. As regards Ground No. 2, which concerns the merits of the addition, the same does not require adjudication at this s the matter has been remanded to the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, Ground No. 2 is dismissed as infructuous. 5. Now, we take up the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2015-16. The grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: “On the facts and circumstances of case and in law: Ground No. 1: Rectification Order u/s. 154 (i) The learned CIT(A) failed to take into consideration that the AO/CPC made a mistake by denying deduction u/s. 80P (which the Assesse is eligible to claim), which is Intimation Order u/s. 143(1), which resulted in an addition of Rs. CCI Chambers ITA No. 3542 & 3543/MUM/2025 Upon such verification, if it is found that the appeal had indeed been filed within the period of limitation, the Ld. CIT(A) shall proceed to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law, treating the appeal filed either in physical format or electronically as valid. However, in the event the appeal is found to have been filed ssee shall be granted an opportunity to file an appropriate application for condonation of delay along with a supporting affidavit. The Ld. CIT(A) shall thereafter adjudicate the issue of condonation of delay in accordance with law and proceed to f the appeal on merits if the delay is condoned. No. 1 raised in the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical As regards Ground No. 2, which concerns the merits of the addition, the same does not require adjudication at this s the matter has been remanded to the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, Ground No. 2 is dismissed as infructuous. we take up the appeal of the assessee for assessment 16. The grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced facts and circumstances of case and in law: Ground No. 1: Rectification Order u/s. 154 (i) The learned CIT(A) failed to take into consideration that the AO/CPC made a mistake by denying deduction u/s. 80P (which the Assesse is eligible to claim), which is apparent in the Intimation Order u/s. 143(1), which resulted in an addition of Rs. CCI Chambers Co-op. HSG. SOC. Ltd. 7 ITA No. 3542 & 3543/MUM/2025 Upon such verification, if it is found that the appeal had indeed limitation, the Ld. CIT(A) shall proceed to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law, treating the appeal filed either in physical format or electronically as valid. However, in the event the appeal is found to have been filed ssee shall be granted an opportunity to file an appropriate application for condonation of delay along with a supporting affidavit. The Ld. CIT(A) shall thereafter adjudicate the issue of condonation of delay in accordance with law and proceed to f the appeal on merits if the delay is condoned. The ground No. 1 raised in the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical As regards Ground No. 2, which concerns the merits of the addition, the same does not require adjudication at this stage since the matter has been remanded to the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we take up the appeal of the assessee for assessment 16. The grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced (i) The learned CIT(A) failed to take into consideration that the AO/CPC made a mistake by denying deduction u/s. 80P (which apparent in the Intimation Order u/s. 143(1), which resulted in an addition of Rs. Printed from counselvise.com 15,46,810/-, which is beyond the scope of section 143(1) and the rectification application filed by the Assessee is valid and legal, (ii) The learned CIT(A) failed to take Intimation u/s. 143(1) passed by the CPC/AO, has arbitrarily denied the deduction u/s. 80P, without providing and valid justification and therefore the right to apply for a rectification u/s. 154, to the AO is legal and valid, a record. (iii) The learned CIT(A) and AO/CPC erred in confirming the denial of deduction u/s. 80P, with respect to Interest income of Rs. 15,46,811/- earned from appellant's investment with co bank, on the ground that (iv) The Learned CIT(A) failed to take into consideration that the deduction was claimed correctly in the return and that the disallowance by the CPC has happened due to a clerical, computational, or processing error and ther debatable. (v) Without prejudice the learned CIT(A) in his Order rejecting the appeal against the rectification proceedings, has himself admitted that the allowability of deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) is a debatable issue and failed to not have passed an adverse order, rejecting the deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) and therefore the application u/s. 154 for rectifying the action of AO/CPC is valid and legal. Without prejudice Ground No. 3: Denial of (i) The learned CIT(A) erred in non adjudicating the appeal on the merits of the case where there has been a denial of deduction u/s. 80P, with respect to Interest income of Rs. 15,46,811/ from appellant's investment with (ii) The learned CIT(A) failed to take into consideration the provisions of section 80P(d) which reads as under: any income by way of interest or dividends derived by the co operative society from its investments with any society, the whole of such income.\" Without prejudice Ground No. 4: Denial of Deduction u/s. 80P(2)(c) CCI Chambers ITA No. 3542 & 3543/MUM/2025 , which is beyond the scope of section 143(1) and the rectification application filed by the Assessee is valid and legal, (ii) The learned CIT(A) failed to take into consideration that the Intimation u/s. 143(1) passed by the CPC/AO, has arbitrarily denied the deduction u/s. 80P, without providing and valid justification and therefore the right to apply for a rectification u/s. 154, to the AO is legal and valid, as it is a mistake apparent on (iii) The learned CIT(A) and AO/CPC erred in confirming the denial of deduction u/s. 80P, with respect to Interest income of Rs. earned from appellant's investment with co bank, on the ground that the issue is debatable issue. (iv) The Learned CIT(A) failed to take into consideration that the deduction was claimed correctly in the return and that the disallowance by the CPC has happened due to a clerical, computational, or processing error and therefore the mistake is not (v) Without prejudice the learned CIT(A) in his Order rejecting the appeal against the rectification proceedings, has himself admitted that the allowability of deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) is a debatable issue and failed to take into consideration that the AO/CPC could not have passed an adverse order, rejecting the deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) and therefore the application u/s. 154 for rectifying the action of AO/CPC is valid and legal. Without prejudice Ground No. 3: Denial of Deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) (i) The learned CIT(A) erred in non adjudicating the appeal on the merits of the case where there has been a denial of deduction u/s. 80P, with respect to Interest income of Rs. 15,46,811/ from appellant's investment with co-operative bank (ii) The learned CIT(A) failed to take into consideration the provisions of section 80P(d) which reads as under:- \"in respect of any income by way of interest or dividends derived by the co operative society from its investments with any other co society, the whole of such income.\" Without prejudice Ground No. 4: Denial of Deduction u/s. 80P(2)(c) CCI Chambers Co-op. HSG. SOC. Ltd. 8 ITA No. 3542 & 3543/MUM/2025 , which is beyond the scope of section 143(1) and the rectification application filed by the Assessee is valid and legal, into consideration that the Intimation u/s. 143(1) passed by the CPC/AO, has arbitrarily denied the deduction u/s. 80P, without providing and valid justification and therefore the right to apply for a rectification u/s. s it is a mistake apparent on (iii) The learned CIT(A) and AO/CPC erred in confirming the denial of deduction u/s. 80P, with respect to Interest income of Rs. earned from appellant's investment with co-operative (iv) The Learned CIT(A) failed to take into consideration that the deduction was claimed correctly in the return and that the disallowance by the CPC has happened due to a clerical, efore the mistake is not (v) Without prejudice the learned CIT(A) in his Order rejecting the appeal against the rectification proceedings, has himself admitted that the allowability of deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) is a debatable take into consideration that the AO/CPC could not have passed an adverse order, rejecting the deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) and therefore the application u/s. 154 for rectifying the (i) The learned CIT(A) erred in non adjudicating the appeal on the merits of the case where there has been a denial of deduction u/s. 80P, with respect to Interest income of Rs. 15,46,811/- earned (ii) The learned CIT(A) failed to take into consideration the \"in respect of any income by way of interest or dividends derived by the co- other co-operative Printed from counselvise.com (i) The learned CIT(A) failed to take into consideration that the claim u/s. 80P(2) (c) of Rs. 50,000, made by the Assessee in the Return of Income, is in accordance with the provisions of law and arbitrary denial of the same in the Intimation u/s. 143(1) is a mistake apparent on record, and therefore ought to be adjudicated upon 5.1 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee of income on 24.09.2015, declaring Nil total income. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act deduction under Chapter VIA amounting to allowed. The assessee subsequently filed a re under Section 154 of the Act before the learned Assessing Officer (AO), contending that it, being a co entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act in respect of interest income earned on d which had not been granted while processing the return. 5.2 However, the learned Assessing Officer rejected the said application, holding that the issue relating to the claim under Section 80P was under litigation not constitute a ‘mistake apparent from the record extract of the findings of the learned Assessing Officer reads as under: “3. The assessee contention of the assessee is not acceptable as the issue u/s. 8 debatable issue. Further, there is no evidence on record to prove that the assessee is eligible for the deduction u/s 80P. Moreover, concerned raised by the assessee of disallowance of deduction of Rs.15,46,811/ CCI Chambers ITA No. 3542 & 3543/MUM/2025 (i) The learned CIT(A) failed to take into consideration that the claim u/s. 80P(2) (c) of Rs. 50,000, made by the Assessee in the urn of Income, is in accordance with the provisions of law and arbitrary denial of the same in the Intimation u/s. 143(1) is a mistake apparent on record, and therefore ought to be upon The brief facts of the case are that the assessee of income on 24.09.2015, declaring Nil total income. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act, wherein deduction under Chapter VIA amounting to ₹15,46,811/ allowed. The assessee subsequently filed a rectification application under Section 154 of the Act before the learned Assessing Officer , contending that it, being a co-operative housing society, was entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act in respect of interest income earned on deposits made with co-operative banks, which had not been granted while processing the return. However, the learned Assessing Officer rejected the said application, holding that the issue relating to the claim under under litigation and debatable, and therefore, did mistake apparent from the record extract of the findings of the learned Assessing Officer reads as 3. The assessee contention of the assessee is not acceptable as the issue u/s. 80P of the I.T. Act, 1961 is letigative as well as an debatable issue. Further, there is no evidence on record to prove that the assessee is eligible for the deduction u/s 80P. Moreover, concerned raised by the assessee of disallowance of deduction of ,46,811/- u/s 80P of the Act is not the mistake apparent CCI Chambers Co-op. HSG. SOC. Ltd. 9 ITA No. 3542 & 3543/MUM/2025 (i) The learned CIT(A) failed to take into consideration that the claim u/s. 80P(2) (c) of Rs. 50,000, made by the Assessee in the urn of Income, is in accordance with the provisions of law and arbitrary denial of the same in the Intimation u/s. 143(1) is a mistake apparent on record, and therefore ought to be The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 24.09.2015, declaring Nil total income. The return was wherein the claim of 15,46,811/– was not ctification application under Section 154 of the Act before the learned Assessing Officer operative housing society, was entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act in respect of operative banks, which had not been granted while processing the return. However, the learned Assessing Officer rejected the said application, holding that the issue relating to the claim under and debatable, and therefore, did mistake apparent from the record’. The relevant extract of the findings of the learned Assessing Officer reads as 3. The assessee contention of the assessee is not acceptable as 0P of the I.T. Act, 1961 is letigative as well as an debatable issue. Further, there is no evidence on record to prove that the assessee is eligible for the deduction u/s 80P. Moreover, concerned raised by the assessee of disallowance of deduction of u/s 80P of the Act is not the mistake apparent Printed from counselvise.com from records. Hence, the request of the assessee to make requisite rectification u/s. 154 of the I.T. Act, 1961 is hereby 5.3 Aggrieved by the rejection, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) Assessing Officer, observing that the rectification jurisdiction under Section 154 is limited to correcting mistakes apparent from the record and does not extend to issues requiring debate or interpretation. The Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the binding decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in 82 ITR 50 (SC)] and CIT v. Keshri Metal Pvt. Ltd. (SC)], and held that no mistake apparent from the discernible in the intimation under Section 143(1) relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: “11. The jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer to rectify an assessment order under section 154 of the Act is limited as he could make correction of errors apparent on the face of the record. In that regard I place reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in T.S. Balaram's ITO v. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50. Similar view has been reiterated in the case of CI (SC). The order of intimation dated 03.03.2016 passed under section 143(1) of the Act, has attained finality as it appears that no appeal was filed against that order. I find no legal infirmity in the impugned appeal fails and the same 5.4 We have heard the rival submissions advanced by the parties and perused the material on record. The controversy that arises for our consideration is whether the rejection of the cl under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act in the intimation issued under CCI Chambers ITA No. 3542 & 3543/MUM/2025 from records. Hence, the request of the assessee to make requisite rectification u/s. 154 of the I.T. Act, 1961 is hereby rejected. Aggrieved by the rejection, the assessee preferred an appeal Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the decision of the Assessing Officer, observing that the rectification jurisdiction under Section 154 is limited to correcting mistakes apparent from the record and does not extend to issues requiring debate or interpretation. The Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the binding decisions of Court in T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros. CIT v. Keshri Metal Pvt. Ltd. [(1999) 237 ITR 165 (SC)], and held that no mistake apparent from the discernible in the intimation under Section 143(1) relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: “11. The jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer to rectify an assessment order under section 154 of the Act is limited as he could make correction of errors apparent on the face of the record. In that regard I place reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in T.S. Balaram's ITO v. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50. Similar view has been reiterated in the case of CIT v. Keshri Metal (P.) Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 165 (SC). The order of intimation dated 03.03.2016 passed under section 143(1) of the Act, has attained finality as it appears that no appeal was filed against that order. I find no legal infirmity in the impugned order u/s 154. Therefore, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.” We have heard the rival submissions advanced by the parties and perused the material on record. The controversy that arises for our consideration is whether the rejection of the claim of deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act in the intimation issued under CCI Chambers Co-op. HSG. SOC. Ltd. 10 ITA No. 3542 & 3543/MUM/2025 from records. Hence, the request of the assessee to make requisite rejected.” Aggrieved by the rejection, the assessee preferred an appeal . The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the decision of the Assessing Officer, observing that the rectification jurisdiction under Section 154 is limited to correcting mistakes apparent from the record and does not extend to issues requiring debate or interpretation. The Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the binding decisions of T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros. [(1971) [(1999) 237 ITR 165 (SC)], and held that no mistake apparent from the record was of the Act. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: “11. The jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer to rectify an assessment order under section 154 of the Act is limited as he could make correction of errors apparent on the face of the record. In that regard I place reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in T.S. Balaram's ITO v. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50. Similar view has been reiterated in T v. Keshri Metal (P.) Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 165 (SC). The order of intimation dated 03.03.2016 passed under section 143(1) of the Act, has attained finality as it appears that no appeal was filed against that order. I find no legal order u/s 154. Therefore, the We have heard the rival submissions advanced by the parties and perused the material on record. The controversy that arises for aim of deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act in the intimation issued under Printed from counselvise.com Section 143(1) amounts to a mistake apparent from the record so as to be rectifiable under Section 154 of the Act. intimation under Section 143(1), it appea on 24.09.2015, whereas the due date as per the system order is recorded as 07.09.2015. income may be one of the reason for adjustment u/s 143(1) of the Act, but the impugned intimation grounds for disallowance of the claim 80P(2)(d). 5.5 Upon careful perusal of the rectification order passed by the Assessing Officer, we find that the Assessing Officer has failed to record cogent or adequate reasons for rejecting the assessee’s application for rectification. It is not evident from record as under which sub clause of section 143(1)(a ) the adjustment has been made by the Central Processing centre(CPC), whether it sub (ii) or sub-clause (v) of section 143(1)(a) of the Act. The Assess presumed it to be under sub for rectification. The ld AO also proceeded to decide the issue accordingly. The order does not disclose any analytical discussion or reasoning as to how the claim of the assessee was considered to be litigative or debatable in nature. Income Tax (Appeals), in the appellate order, has merely affirmed the action of the Assessing Officer without undertaking an CCI Chambers ITA No. 3542 & 3543/MUM/2025 Section 143(1) amounts to a mistake apparent from the record so as to be rectifiable under Section 154 of the Act. On intimation under Section 143(1), it appears that the return was filed on 24.09.2015, whereas the due date as per the system order is recorded as 07.09.2015. The belated filing of return of income may be one of the reason for adjustment u/s 143(1) of the he impugned intimation does not clearly specify the grounds for disallowance of the claim of deduction Upon careful perusal of the rectification order passed by the Assessing Officer, we find that the Assessing Officer has failed to adequate reasons for rejecting the assessee’s application for rectification. It is not evident from record as under which sub clause of section 143(1)(a ) the adjustment has been the Central Processing centre(CPC), whether it sub lause (v) of section 143(1)(a) of the Act. The Assess presumed it to be under sub-clause (ii) and accordingly requested for rectification. The ld AO also proceeded to decide the issue The order does not disclose any analytical discussion to how the claim of the assessee was considered to be litigative or debatable in nature. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), in the appellate order, has merely affirmed the action of the Assessing Officer without undertaking an CCI Chambers Co-op. HSG. SOC. Ltd. 11 ITA No. 3542 & 3543/MUM/2025 Section 143(1) amounts to a mistake apparent from the record so as On examining the rs that the return was filed on 24.09.2015, whereas the due date as per the system-generated The belated filing of return of income may be one of the reason for adjustment u/s 143(1) of the does not clearly specify the of deduction under Section Upon careful perusal of the rectification order passed by the Assessing Officer, we find that the Assessing Officer has failed to adequate reasons for rejecting the assessee’s application for rectification. It is not evident from record as under which sub clause of section 143(1)(a ) the adjustment has been the Central Processing centre(CPC), whether it sub-clause lause (v) of section 143(1)(a) of the Act. The Assessee clause (ii) and accordingly requested for rectification. The ld AO also proceeded to decide the issue The order does not disclose any analytical discussion to how the claim of the assessee was considered to The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), in the appellate order, has merely affirmed the action of the Assessing Officer without undertaking an Printed from counselvise.com independent examination or addressing the fundamental issue regarding the nature of the assessee’s claim. 5.6 Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the considered view that the matter requires reconsideration at the level of the Assessing Officer. Acc authorities are set aside, and the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to pass a reasoned and speaking order, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The Assessing Officer shall specifically address the issue as to how the claim of the assessee is considered litigative or debatable, and shall also clearly indicate the precise sub of the Act under which the adjustment has been made, w under sub-clause (ii) or sub 6. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, both the appeal statistical purposes. Order pronounced Sd/ (RAHUL CHAUDHARY JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 30/07/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. CCI Chambers ITA No. 3542 & 3543/MUM/2025 xamination or addressing the fundamental issue regarding the nature of the assessee’s claim. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the considered view that the matter requires reconsideration at the level of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the orders passed by the lower authorities are set aside, and the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to pass a reasoned and speaking order, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. ssing Officer shall specifically address the issue as to how the claim of the assessee is considered litigative or debatable, and shall also clearly indicate the precise sub-clause of Section 143(1)(a) of the Act under which the adjustment has been made, w clause (ii) or sub-clause (v). The grounds of appeal of the assessee are accordingly allowed for In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for Order pronounced in the open Court on 30 Sd/- (RAHUL CHAUDHARY) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CCI Chambers Co-op. HSG. SOC. Ltd. 12 ITA No. 3542 & 3543/MUM/2025 xamination or addressing the fundamental issue Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the considered view that the matter requires reconsideration at the level ordingly, the orders passed by the lower authorities are set aside, and the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to pass a reasoned and speaking order, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. ssing Officer shall specifically address the issue as to how the claim of the assessee is considered litigative or debatable, and clause of Section 143(1)(a) of the Act under which the adjustment has been made, whether it is The grounds of appeal of the assessee are accordingly allowed for of the assessee are allowed for 30/07/2025. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Printed from counselvise.com Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// CCI Chambers ITA No. 3542 & 3543/MUM/2025 Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai CCI Chambers Co-op. HSG. SOC. Ltd. 13 ITA No. 3542 & 3543/MUM/2025 BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "