PALM COURT M PREMISES CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED ,MUMBAI V. ITO 41(3)(3) , MUMBAI

ITA 3830/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves the Palm Court M Premises Co-operative Society Ltd., which appealed against the orders of the Ld. Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – 1, Visakhapatnam, for the assessment years 2018-19 and 2020-21. The appeals were initially rejected by the Ld. CIT(A) due to inordinate delays in filing, attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent health issues of the society's manager and tax consultant. The Tribunal found that the assessee should be given an opportunity to substantiate the reasons for the delay with appropriate evidence and set aside the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision, restoring the matter for fresh consideration.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 713297 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURENDRA MOHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: K. GOPAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA Nos. 3830 & 3831/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Palm Court M Premises Co- operative Society Ltd. Ground floor, Palm Court Co- operative HSG, Link Road, Malad (West) Mumbai-400064. Vs. DCIT, CPC- Bengaluru ITO 41(3)(3), Kautilya Bhavan, BKC Mumbai-400051. PAN NO. AAAAP 8738 K Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. K. Gopal Revenue by : Mr. Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 31/07/2025 Date of pronouncement : 31/07/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM These appeals by the assessee are directed against two separate order, both dated 25.04.2025 passed by the Ld. Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – 1, Visakhapatnam [hereinafter shall be referred as ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment years 2018-19 and 2020-21 respectively. Printed from counselvise.com 2. At the very threshold, the lear submitted that the learned Commissioner of Income [hereinafter referred to as \"Ld. CIT(A)\"] declined to admit the appeals for Assessment Years 2018 inordinate delay in filing the s 2018-19, the Ld. CIT(A) recorded a delay of 2075 days in filing the appeal, while for Assessment Year 2020 1138 days. The Ld. CIT(A), while declining to condone the delay, has extracted the reques For ready reference, the request pertaining to A.Y. 2018 reproduced hereunder: “REQUEST FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN THE MATTER OF PALM COURT \"M\" PREMISES CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED (THE APPELLANT) The appellant is Co Year 2018-19, an order under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed on 31.05.2019, denying the deduction under Section 80P(2) (d) claimed by the appellant. The deadlin filing the appeal was 30.06.2019. However, the appellant is filing the appeal now on 04.03.2025, with a delay of 2074 days Upon receiving the said order, the appellant, as advised, filed a rectification application under Section 154 of the Income Tax 1961. However, this application was rejected by the CPC on 14.07.2020, right in the midst of the nationwide COVID lockdown imposed by the Government of India from 24.03.2020. Consequently, the manager responsible for overseeing tax matters and coordinating with the tax consultant inadvertently failed to inform the Managing Committee about the rejection of the rectification application. Additionally, after contracting COVID the manager has been dealing with post Palm Court M Premises Co ITA Nos. 3830 & 3831/MUM/2025 At the very threshold, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned Commissioner of Income [hereinafter referred to as \"Ld. CIT(A)\"] declined to admit the appeals for Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2020-21, on the ground of inordinate delay in filing the same. In the case of Assessment Year 19, the Ld. CIT(A) recorded a delay of 2075 days in filing the appeal, while for Assessment Year 2020-21, the delay noted was 1138 days. The Ld. CIT(A), while declining to condone the delay, has extracted the request made by the assessee for condonation. For ready reference, the request pertaining to A.Y. 2018 reproduced hereunder: REQUEST FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN THE MATTER OF PALM COURT \"M\" PREMISES CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED (THE APPELLANT) Α.Υ. 2018-19 The appellant is Co-operative Housing Society. For the Assessment 19, an order under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed on 31.05.2019, denying the deduction under Section 80P(2) (d) claimed by the appellant. The deadlin filing the appeal was 30.06.2019. However, the appellant is filing the appeal now on 04.03.2025, with a delay of 2074 days Upon receiving the said order, the appellant, as advised, filed a rectification application under Section 154 of the Income Tax 1961. However, this application was rejected by the CPC on 14.07.2020, right in the midst of the nationwide COVID lockdown imposed by the Government of India from 24.03.2020. Consequently, the manager responsible for overseeing tax matters rdinating with the tax consultant inadvertently failed to inform the Managing Committee about the rejection of the rectification application. Additionally, after contracting COVID the manager has been dealing with post-COVID health issues. Palm Court M Premises Co-operative Society Ltd 2 ITA Nos. 3830 & 3831/MUM/2025 ned counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as \"Ld. CIT(A)\"] declined to admit the appeals 21, on the ground of ame. In the case of Assessment Year 19, the Ld. CIT(A) recorded a delay of 2075 days in filing the 21, the delay noted was 1138 days. The Ld. CIT(A), while declining to condone the delay, t made by the assessee for condonation. For ready reference, the request pertaining to A.Y. 2018–19 is REQUEST FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN THE MATTER OF PALM COURT \"M\" PREMISES CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED (THE APPELLANT) operative Housing Society. For the Assessment 19, an order under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed on 31.05.2019, denying the deduction under Section 80P(2) (d) claimed by the appellant. The deadline for filing the appeal was 30.06.2019. However, the appellant is filing the appeal now on 04.03.2025, with a delay of 2074 days Upon receiving the said order, the appellant, as advised, filed a rectification application under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, this application was rejected by the CPC on 14.07.2020, right in the midst of the nationwide COVID-19 lockdown imposed by the Government of India from 24.03.2020. Consequently, the manager responsible for overseeing tax matters rdinating with the tax consultant inadvertently failed to inform the Managing Committee about the rejection of the rectification application. Additionally, after contracting COVID-19, COVID health issues. Printed from counselvise.com The delay in nationwide COVID COVID health issues, which affected his ability to attend the office regularly and oversee the society's affairs effectively. Under a genuine belief the manager only became aware in November 2024 that the Tax Consultant had also been facing health had not been managing the tax matters. Upon realizing this, the manager promptly i swiftly engaged new tax consultant to review all pending tax matters, explore possible remedial actions, and ensure that the necessary appeals were filed without further delay. The delay of 2,074 days in filing the app circumstances beyond the appellant's control. It was neither intentional nor motivated by any malafide intent. Furthermore, the appellant has not derived any benefit from the delay. Sufficient cause has been demonstrated to justify the condo delay, and the appellant respectfully requests that the application be considered with a justice substantial justice. In light of the above, it is respectfully requested that the delay in filing the appeal be cond The affidavit of the Manager detailing the aforesaid facts is attached, which may kindly be placed before the Hon'ble CIT(A) for condonation of the delay in submission of appeal. For your kind referral the assessee wishes to place reliance on the following 2 case laws that lays down the law on the issue of condonation 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A), however, rejected the plea for condonation of delay primarily on the ground that the assessee failed to establish absence of negligence and failed to demon of diligence in pursuing the appellate remedy. It was further observed that no cogent evidence had been furnished in support of the reasons advanced in the application. The relevant portion of the Ld. CIT(A)’s findings reads as Palm Court M Premises Co ITA Nos. 3830 & 3831/MUM/2025 The delay in filing the appeal was primarily caused by the nationwide COVID-19 lockdown, followed by the manager's post COVID health issues, which affected his ability to attend the office regularly and oversee the society's affairs effectively. Under a genuine belief that tax matters were being handled appropriately, the manager only became aware in November 2024 that the Tax Consultant had also been facing health-related challenges and had not been managing the tax matters. Upon realizing this, the manager promptly informed the Managing Committee, which swiftly engaged new tax consultant to review all pending tax matters, explore possible remedial actions, and ensure that the necessary appeals were filed without further delay. The delay of 2,074 days in filing the appeal was due to circumstances beyond the appellant's control. It was neither intentional nor motivated by any malafide intent. Furthermore, the appellant has not derived any benefit from the delay. Sufficient cause has been demonstrated to justify the condonation of the delay, and the appellant respectfully requests that the application be considered with a justice-oriented approach, to render substantial justice. In light of the above, it is respectfully requested that the delay in filing the appeal be condoned. The affidavit of the Manager detailing the aforesaid facts is attached, which may kindly be placed before the Hon'ble CIT(A) for condonation of the delay in submission of appeal. For your kind referral the assessee wishes to place reliance on the lowing 2 case laws that lays down the law on the issue of of delay:” The Ld. CIT(A), however, rejected the plea for condonation of delay primarily on the ground that the assessee failed to establish absence of negligence and failed to demonstrate a satisfactory level of diligence in pursuing the appellate remedy. It was further observed that no cogent evidence had been furnished in support of the reasons advanced in the application. The relevant portion of the Ld. CIT(A)’s findings reads as under: Palm Court M Premises Co-operative Society Ltd 3 ITA Nos. 3830 & 3831/MUM/2025 filing the appeal was primarily caused by the 19 lockdown, followed by the manager's post- COVID health issues, which affected his ability to attend the office regularly and oversee the society's affairs effectively. Under a that tax matters were being handled appropriately, the manager only became aware in November 2024 that the Tax related challenges and had not been managing the tax matters. Upon realizing this, the nformed the Managing Committee, which swiftly engaged new tax consultant to review all pending tax matters, explore possible remedial actions, and ensure that the eal was due to circumstances beyond the appellant's control. It was neither intentional nor motivated by any malafide intent. Furthermore, the appellant has not derived any benefit from the delay. Sufficient nation of the delay, and the appellant respectfully requests that the application oriented approach, to render In light of the above, it is respectfully requested that the delay in The affidavit of the Manager detailing the aforesaid facts is attached, which may kindly be placed before the Hon'ble CIT(A) for For your kind referral the assessee wishes to place reliance on the lowing 2 case laws that lays down the law on the issue of The Ld. CIT(A), however, rejected the plea for condonation of delay primarily on the ground that the assessee failed to establish strate a satisfactory level of diligence in pursuing the appellate remedy. It was further observed that no cogent evidence had been furnished in support of the reasons advanced in the application. The relevant portion of the Printed from counselvise.com “The appellant has not furnished any proper reason for delay in filing the appeal along with proofs. Even after exclusion provided by the Honourable Supreme court of India in Miscellaneous Application No. 21 of 2022 dt. 10.01.2022 there is a delay 1360 days in filing the appeal. The condonation delay application is carefully gone through. The request for condonation of inordinate delay in filing of appeal is not acceptable as the appellant not furnished any proper cause for delay in filing the appeal along 3. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is now willing to produce necessary evidence to substantiate the reasons for the delay as stated in the condonation application. It was pointed ou account of prolonged post who was primarily entrusted with tax matters, as well as serious health issues faced by the erstwhile tax consultant, who eventually passed away. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the assessee deserves an opportunity to place on record the evidence in support of the condonation request. In the interest of substantial justice, we, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for the limited purpose of considering afresh the application for condonation of delay, after granting adequate opportunity of being heard and after appreciating the evidence th may be placed on record by the assessee. In the event the delay is condoned, the Ld. CIT(A) shall thereafter proceed to adjudicate the Palm Court M Premises Co ITA Nos. 3830 & 3831/MUM/2025 The appellant has not furnished any proper reason for delay in filing the appeal along with proofs. Even after exclusion provided by the Honourable Supreme court of India in Miscellaneous Application No. 21 of 2022 dt. 10.01.2022 there is a delay 1360 days in filing the appeal. The condonation delay application is carefully gone through. The request for condonation of inordinate delay in filing of appeal is not acceptable as the appellant not furnished any proper cause for delay in filing the with evidences.” Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is now willing to produce necessary evidence to substantiate the reasons for the delay as stated in the condonation application. It was pointed out that the delay was occasioned on account of prolonged post-COVID illness of the society’s manager, who was primarily entrusted with tax matters, as well as serious health issues faced by the erstwhile tax consultant, who eventually ing regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the assessee deserves an opportunity to place on record the evidence in support of the condonation request. In the interest of substantial justice, we, aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for the limited purpose of considering afresh the application for condonation of delay, after granting adequate opportunity of being heard and after appreciating the evidence th may be placed on record by the assessee. In the event the delay is condoned, the Ld. CIT(A) shall thereafter proceed to adjudicate the Palm Court M Premises Co-operative Society Ltd 4 ITA Nos. 3830 & 3831/MUM/2025 The appellant has not furnished any proper reason for delay in filing the appeal along with proofs. Even after exclusion provided by the Honourable Supreme court of India in Miscellaneous Application No. 21 of 2022 dt. 10.01.2022 there is a delay about 1360 days in filing the appeal. The condonation delay application is carefully gone through. The request for condonation of inordinate delay in filing of appeal is not acceptable as the appellant not furnished any proper cause for delay in filing the Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is now willing to produce necessary evidence to substantiate the reasons for the delay as stated in the condonation t that the delay was occasioned on COVID illness of the society’s manager, who was primarily entrusted with tax matters, as well as serious health issues faced by the erstwhile tax consultant, who eventually ing regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the assessee deserves an opportunity to place on record the evidence in support of the condonation request. In the interest of substantial justice, we, aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for the limited purpose of considering afresh the application for condonation of delay, after granting adequate opportunity of being heard and after appreciating the evidence that may be placed on record by the assessee. In the event the delay is condoned, the Ld. CIT(A) shall thereafter proceed to adjudicate the Printed from counselvise.com appeal on merits in accordance with law and after affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee. 4.1 The facts pertaining to Assessment Year 2020 materia and identical to those of Assessment Year 2018 appeal for Assessment Year 2020 the Ld. CIT(A) to be decided afresh, with the observations made hereinabove. 5. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/ (RAHUL CHAUDHARY JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 31/07/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// Palm Court M Premises Co ITA Nos. 3830 & 3831/MUM/2025 appeal on merits in accordance with law and after affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee. 4.1 The facts pertaining to Assessment Year 2020 and identical to those of Assessment Year 2018 appeal for Assessment Year 2020-21 is also restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to be decided afresh, mutatis mutandis with the observations made hereinabove. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for nounced in the open Court on 31/07/2025. Sd/- S (RAHUL CHAUDHARY) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Palm Court M Premises Co-operative Society Ltd 5 ITA Nos. 3830 & 3831/MUM/2025 appeal on merits in accordance with law and after affording 4.1 The facts pertaining to Assessment Year 2020-21 being pari- and identical to those of Assessment Year 2018-19, the 21 is also restored to the file of mutatis mutandis, in accordance In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for /07/2025. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "