LOTUS PLAZA CO-OP HSG. SOC. LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO WD-3(1) , MUMBAI

ITA 1914/MUM/2021

AI Insights

The case involves Lotus Plaza Co-op. Housing Society Ltd., which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre, challenging the denial of deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The primary issue was the belated filing of the appeal by 189 days, which the CIT(A) did not condone, leading to the current appeal. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's reasons for the delay, including the absence of a permanent accountant or tax consultant and the honorary nature of the managing committee members, which contributed to the oversight of the appeal filing deadline.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 300164 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-11-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 07-09-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 19-08-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Period of limitation
• Section: 143(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM IT A N o. 19 14 / Mu m/ 20 21 (As se ss me nt Y ea r: 20 18- 19 ) Lotus Plaza Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. Gokhale Road, Naupada, Mumbai-400 602 Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Mumbai PA N/ GI R No . AA A AL 2 90 3 N (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Dharan Gandhi Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kumar Singh Dat e of H ea ri ng : 08.09.2022 Dat e of P ro no un ce me nt : 30.11.2022 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J. M.: This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘ld.CIT(A) for short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2018-19. 2. The brief facts are that the assessee is a registered co-operative housing society whose account is required to be audited u/s. 81(1)(a) of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The assessee submits that the due date of filing of the return for the assessee’s society as per the provisions of section 139(1), Explanation 2(ii) is on 2 ITA No. 1 9 1 4 / M u m / 2 0 2 1 ( A . Y . 2 0 1 8 - 1 9 ) Lotus Plaza Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. vs. ITO 30.09.2018 and since the assessee had filed its return on 31.08.2018, the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) was denied by the Assessing Officer (A.O. for short). 3. Aggrieved by this, the assessee was in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 4. It is observed that the assessee has filed the said appeal belatedly after a delay of 189 days. The ld. CIT(A) failed to condone the delay in filing the appeal on the ground that there was no sufficient cause shown by the assessee as per the provisions of section 249(3) of the Act within the prescribed period of limitation u/s. 249(2) of the Act r.w.s. 5 of the limited Act. The ld. CIT(A) failed to admit the assessee’s appeal on this ground. 5. Aggrieved by this, the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. It is observed that the assessee has filed an affidavit specifying the reason for the delay in filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. The assessee submit that it is a co-operative housing society in which the managing committee members are honorary members and working towards welfare of the society. The assessee further states that the assessee society does not have a permanent accountant or a tax consultant and that the email from CPC, pertaining to intimation order u/s. 143(1) was noticed by the assessee society only after the prescribed time limit of filing the appeal. The ld. AR contended that the assessee’s delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) was not purposely done. The ld. AR prayed for condoning the delay and for setting aside the matter to the ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication and stated that the assessee has got a good case on merit and that the issue pertaining to deduction u/s.80P of the Act was covered in favour of the assessee by various decisions. 3 ITA No. 1 9 1 4 / M u m / 2 0 2 1 ( A . Y . 2 0 1 8 - 1 9 ) Lotus Plaza Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. vs. ITO 7. The ld. Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short) vehemently opposed to the submission of the assessee. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials on record. On the basis of principles of natural justice, we deem it fit to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to present its case before the ld. CIT(A). On this note, we direct the ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee and to decide the issue on merits, after giving opportunity to be heard. We hereby remand this issue to the file of the ld. CIT(A). 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.11.2022 Sd/- Sd/- (M. Balaganesh) (Kavitha Rajagopal) Accountant Member Judicial Member Mumbai; Dated : 30.11.2022 Roshani , Sr. PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT - concerned 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai