LUNKAD SKY VIE CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,PUNE V. ITO WARD 7(3), PUNE

ITA 1463/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Lunkad Sky Vie Co-operative Housing Society Limited, which appealed against the order of the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2021-22. The primary contention was the incorrect confirmation of the total income at Rs. 54,69,700 instead of Rs. 6,30,000, due to the disallowance of deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the IT Act, 1961. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without discussing the merits, citing a delay in filing the appeal by 407 days, which was not condoned. The Tribunal found that the assessee had reasonable cause for the delay and directed the CIT(A) to reconsider the appeal on its merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 772143 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Other Referred Cases: The Mavilayi Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. & ORS. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2021) 431 ITR 1 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAMNATH P. MURKUNDE
• Assessee Lawyers: KISHOR B. PHADKE
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Reasonable cause; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1463/PUN/2024 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Lunkad Sky Vie Co- operative Housing Society Limited, S. No.211, H. No.312, Lunkad Sky Vie, Lohegoan, Vimannagar, Pune- 411014. PAN : AAAAL8573A Vs. ITO, Ward-7(3), Pune. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 14.05.2024 passed by Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Vadodara [‘Ld. CIT(A)’] for the assessment year 2021-22. 2. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “(All grounds are on an alternate and without prejudice basis to each other) Assessee by : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of hearing : 12.08.2025 Date of pronouncement : 26.08.2025 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1463/PUN/2024 2 1. The learned ADDL/JCIT (A)-1 Vadodara (hereafter referred to as CIT(A)) erred in law and on facts in confirming the total income of the appellant at Rs. 54,69,700/- instead of Rs. 6,30,000/- by disallowing deduction u/s 80P(2)(d). 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in passing an appellate order without entering into merits and without granting an appropriate opportunity for hearing thus violating the principle of natural justice. Learned CIT(A)-NFAC ought to have condoned the delay in filing the appeal as the delay was due to genuine hardship faced by the appellant. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in laws and on facts in sustaining the disallowance of the deduction of Rs. 48,39,696 u/s 80P(2)(d) of the ITA, 1961 made by the learned ACIT-CPC and the same as interest income derived from its investments held with various Co-operative banks and other financial institutions. 4. The learned I-T Authorities erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the Supreme Court in the case of The Mavilayi Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. & ORS. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2021) 431 ITR 1 (SC) has held that interest earned by a Co-operative Society from a Co-operative bank is entitled for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of ITA, 1961. 5. The learned I-T Authorities erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the interest on deposits with co-operative bank, are covered under the concept of \"mutuality\" and hence not taxable. 6. Appellant craves leave to add/alter/modify/amend/delete all or any of the grounds of appeal.” 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are, that the assessee is a housing cooperative society furnished its return of income on 14.03.2022 as per extended due date vide Circular No.1 dated 11.01.2022 till 15.03.2022 declaring total income of Rs.6,30,000/-. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the IT Act by CPC on 02.11.2022 at an income of Rs.54,69,700/-. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.48,39,696/- on account of Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1463/PUN/2024 3 disallowance of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the IT Act made by CPC as against the income returned by the assessee at Rs.6,30,000/-. 4. Aggrieved with the above 143(1) order, the appeal was furnished belatedly i.e. with the delay of 407 days before first appellate authority, however, without condoning the said delay, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the same without discussing the merits of the case. 5. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the paper book furnished by the assessee. It is the contention of Ld. AR that the petition for condonation of delay was furnished before Ld. CIT(A) wherein all the reasons were mentioned due to which the appellant could not file the appeal within the prescribed time limit. In support of this contention, Ld. AR draw our attention to page no.7 to 18 of Ld. CIT(A)’s order wherein the application for condonation of delay and written submission with regard to merits of the case have been reproduced by Ld. CIT(A). On the basis of above, Ld. AR contended before the Bench that it was wrong on the part of Ld. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1463/PUN/2024 4 CIT(A) to observe in his order that the appeal has been dismissed on the ground of rejection of petition for condonation of delay and in absence of submission. Accordingly, Ld. AR requested before the Bench to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A). 7. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied on the orders passed by the subordinate authorities and requested to confirm the same. 8. Considering the totality of the facts of the case, we find force in the above arguments of Ld. Counsel of the assessee that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause for not furnishing the appeal within time before Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits of the case as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A) in this regard and produce submissions/evidences/documents in support of grounds of appeal without taking any adjournment under any pretext, otherwise Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1463/PUN/2024 5 Thus, the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 26th day of August, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 26th August, 2025. Sujeet आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Vadodara. 4. The Pr. CIT/CIT concerned. 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “A” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "