SHIV PARVATI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI V. ITO WARD 22(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2845/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shiv Parvati Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., the appellant, contesting the rejection of their rectification application by the Assessing Officer, which pertained to the non-granting of deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2015-16. The CIT(A) had initially declined to admit the appeal due to an inordinate delay of nearly 8 years in filing the appeal, citing lack of substantial reasons and supporting evidence for the delay. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's request for another opportunity to present evidence supporting the reasons for the delay and thus remanded the case back to the CIT(A).

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 712701 (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: Kshatriya Gadkari Maratha Co-operative Credit Ltd v. ITO in ITA No.3646 & 3647/Mum/2018, Kalindas Udyog Bhavan Premises Co-op Hsg Society v. ITO in ITA No. 654/Mum/2017
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAVIN SALUNKHE
• Assessee Lawyers: KUKREJA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Corroborative evidences; Rectification of order
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA No. 2845/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shiv Parvati Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., 14th Road, Khar West, Mumbai-400052. Vs. ITO Ward 22(3)(1), Piramal Chamber, Mumbai-400013. PAN NO. AADAS 1163 J Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Kukreja, CA Revenue by : Mr. Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 25/06/2025 Date of pronouncement : 30/07/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 17.03.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2015-16 arising from the rectification application of the assessee rejected by the Assessing Officer. The grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: Printed from counselvise.com 1. The learned A.O. erred in not granting deduction u/s 80P(2)(d amounting to Rs.1,41,996/ u/s 154 by way of income from other sources in respect of interest earned on fixed deposit from/with Co also overlooking the fact that debatable addition cannot be sustained u/s.154 or 143[1] and also overlooking the fact that the appellant has been allowed deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) in the earlier years. 2. The learned A.O. erred in not granting deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) amounting to Rs.1,41,996/ u/s 154 by way of income from other sources in respect of interest earned on fixed deposit from/with Co thereby rejecting case laws of jurisdictional Tribunal, Mumbai in the case of Kshatriya Gadkari Maratha Co Society Ltd v. ITO in ITA No.3646 & 3647/Mum/2018 and Kalindas Udyog Bhavan Premises Co ITA No. 654/Mum/2017. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO erred in wrongly charging interest u/s 234A, B & C. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(A) erred in confirming the addition, thereby not allowing the deduction U/s. 80P(2)(d) and accepting the petition for condonation filed and by also overlooking the fact that debatable addition cannot be sustained u/s. 154 or 143[1] and not granting an opportunity of being heard before passing 2. We have heard the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully peruse available on record. It is observed that the learned CIT(A) declined to admit the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground of inordinate delay of 7 years, 11 months, and 20 days. The CIT(A) was of the view that the reasons furnished for th general and lacked supporting evidence. Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: Shiv Parvati Co ITA No. 2845/MUM/2025 1. The learned A.O. erred in not granting deduction u/s 80P(2)(d amounting to Rs.1,41,996/- thereby passing rectification order u/s 154 by way of income from other sources in respect of interest earned on fixed deposit from/with Co-operative banks by also overlooking the fact that debatable addition cannot be d u/s.154 or 143[1] and also overlooking the fact that the appellant has been allowed deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) in the 2. The learned A.O. erred in not granting deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) amounting to Rs.1,41,996/- thereby passing rectification o u/s 154 by way of income from other sources in respect of interest earned on fixed deposit from/with Co-operative banks thereby rejecting case laws of jurisdictional Tribunal, Mumbai in the case of Kshatriya Gadkari Maratha Co-operative Credit Ltd v. ITO in ITA No.3646 & 3647/Mum/2018 and Kalindas Udyog Bhavan Premises Co-op Hsg Society v. ITO in ITA No. 654/Mum/2017. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO erred in wrongly charging interest u/s 234A, B & C. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(A) erred in confirming the addition, thereby not allowing the deduction U/s. 80P(2)(d) and accepting the petition for condonation filed and by also he fact that debatable addition cannot be sustained u/s. 154 or 143[1] and not granting an opportunity of being heard before passing the order. We have heard the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully peruse available on record. It is observed that the learned CIT(A) declined to admit the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground of inordinate delay of 7 years, 11 months, and 20 days. The CIT(A) was of the view that the reasons furnished for th general and lacked supporting evidence. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: Shiv Parvati Co-operative Housing Society Ltd 2 ITA No. 2845/MUM/2025 1. The learned A.O. erred in not granting deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) thereby passing rectification order u/s 154 by way of income from other sources in respect of operative banks by also overlooking the fact that debatable addition cannot be d u/s.154 or 143[1] and also overlooking the fact that the appellant has been allowed deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) in the 2. The learned A.O. erred in not granting deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) thereby passing rectification order u/s 154 by way of income from other sources in respect of operative banks thereby rejecting case laws of jurisdictional Tribunal, Mumbai in operative Credit Ltd v. ITO in ITA No.3646 & 3647/Mum/2018 and op Hsg Society v. ITO in 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO erred in wrongly charging interest u/s 234A, B & C. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(A) erred in confirming the addition, thereby not allowing the deduction U/s. 80P(2)(d) and accepting the petition for condonation filed and by also he fact that debatable addition cannot be sustained u/s. 154 or 143[1] and not granting an opportunity of being We have heard the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the material available on record. It is observed that the learned CIT(A) declined to admit the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground of inordinate delay of 7 years, 11 months, and 20 days. The CIT(A) was of the view that the reasons furnished for the delay were The relevant finding of the Printed from counselvise.com “5.2 I have carefully considered the reasons adduced by the appellant for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. The appellant h secretary to Australia without informing the other committee member and leaving the employment by the assistant in CA office. Admittedly, the society has a part time accountant and is assisted by the Chartered A years is tried to be explained by these general reasons without any corroborative evidence whatsoever. It is trite law that the law assist those who are vigilant about their rights. In this case the delay of around 8 years cause as above, therefore the same is not condoned. The appeal is, accordingly not admitted because of inor the same.” 2.1 Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee has submitted that the assessee is now in a position to furnish the requisite evidence in support of the reasons cited for the delay. In view of this submission and in the interest of justice, we are of the considered opinion that the matter deserves to be remanded to the file of the CIT(A) for reconsideration of the assessee’s application for condonation of delay. The CIT(A) shall afford adequate opportunity to the assessee to place on record the supporting material and thereafter decide the matter afresh in accordance wit event the delay is condoned, the CIT(A) shall proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 2.2 Accordingly, Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. In view of the above direction, Grounds Nos. 1 to 3 do not require separate adjudication at this stage. Shiv Parvati Co ITA No. 2845/MUM/2025 5.2 I have carefully considered the reasons adduced by the appellant for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. The appellant has given general reasons i.e migration of ex secretary to Australia without informing the other committee member and leaving the employment by the assistant in CA office. Admittedly, the society has a part time accountant and is assisted by the Chartered Accountant. The delay of around 8 years is tried to be explained by these general reasons without any corroborative evidence whatsoever. It is trite law that the law assist those who are vigilant about their rights. In this case the delay of around 8 years in highly inordinate without reasonable cause as above, therefore the same is not condoned. The appeal is, accordingly not admitted because of inordinate delay in filing Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee has t the assessee is now in a position to furnish the requisite evidence in support of the reasons cited for the delay. In view of this submission and in the interest of justice, we are of the considered opinion that the matter deserves to be remanded to the file of the CIT(A) for reconsideration of the assessee’s application for condonation of delay. The CIT(A) shall afford adequate opportunity to the assessee to place on record the supporting material and thereafter decide the matter afresh in accordance wit event the delay is condoned, the CIT(A) shall proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. Accordingly, Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. In view of the above direction, Grounds require separate adjudication at this stage. Shiv Parvati Co-operative Housing Society Ltd 3 ITA No. 2845/MUM/2025 5.2 I have carefully considered the reasons adduced by the appellant for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. as given general reasons i.e migration of ex secretary to Australia without informing the other committee member and leaving the employment by the assistant in CA office. Admittedly, the society has a part time accountant and is ccountant. The delay of around 8 years is tried to be explained by these general reasons without any corroborative evidence whatsoever. It is trite law that the law assist those who are vigilant about their rights. In this case the in highly inordinate without reasonable cause as above, therefore the same is not condoned. The appeal dinate delay in filing Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee has t the assessee is now in a position to furnish the requisite evidence in support of the reasons cited for the delay. In view of this submission and in the interest of justice, we are of the considered opinion that the matter deserves to be remanded to the file of the CIT(A) for reconsideration of the assessee’s application for condonation of delay. The CIT(A) shall afford adequate opportunity to the assessee to place on record the supporting material and thereafter decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. In the event the delay is condoned, the CIT(A) shall proceed to adjudicate Accordingly, Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. In view of the above direction, Grounds require separate adjudication at this stage. Printed from counselvise.com 3. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/ (SANDEEP GOSAIN JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 30/07/2025 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// Shiv Parvati Co ITA No. 2845/MUM/2025 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for nounced in the open Court on 30/07/2025. Sd/- Sd/ SANDEEP GOSAIN) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Shiv Parvati Co-operative Housing Society Ltd 4 ITA No. 2845/MUM/2025 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for /07/2025. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "