SHREE SAPTASHREE GREESHMA RESIDENCY-1 CHS,THANE V. CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE, BENGALURU

ITA 1446/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shree Satptashree Greeshma Residency -1, CHS, Mumbai, appealing against an order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which was detrimental to the assessee's claim under Section 80(P)(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal was initially delayed due to the assessee not receiving a physical or email copy of the order, attributed to a technical issue. Upon discovering the order, the assessee sought advice from various consultants before filing the appeal. The Tribunal found the explanation for the delay reasonable and admitted the appeal, directing the CIT(A) to reconsider the case on its merits, using precedents cited by the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 312774 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Other Referred Cases: Aqua Co-op Housing Society Ltd Vs. ITO, 408/Mum/2015, ACIT Vs. The Jawahar Nagar Co-op Housing Society Ltd, 6252 & 6253/Mum/2016, Mhatre Palace CHSL, 6394/Mum/2024, Navodaya Education Trust, Vs. DCIT, [2021] 130 taxmann.com 256 (Bangalore -Trib)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AVINASH KARPE
• Assessee Lawyers: TANMAY MILIND PHADKE; JUSTIFIABLY; PROPERLY EXPLAINING
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1446/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2021-22) Shree Satptashree Greeshma Residency -1, CHS Mental Hospital Road, Nalpada, Thane – 400 604. Vs. Centralized Processing Centre PAN/GIR No. ABDAS9103K (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Tanmay Milind Phadke Revenue by Shri Avinash Karpe, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 28.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement 29.04.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 30.11.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for the assessment year 2021-21. 2. From the records, I noticed that there is a delay of 394 days in filing the present appeal and in this regard it is submitted that the order of Ld. CIT(A) was uploaded on the Income Tax Website but the assessee society did not 2 ITA No. 1446/Mum/2025 Shree Saptashree Greeshma Residency -1, CHS, Mumbai receive any physical copy of the same. Even from the perusal of the mail box, it appears that assessee society did not receive the same in mail box which may be on account of technical issue. It was further submitted that on 26.10.2024 assessee society came to know about the adjustment of refund for A.Y 2024-25 therefore after visiting the Income Tax Website it was noticed that the CIT(A) had already passed the order against the assessee society. In this regard a screen shot of the portal evidencing the said fact has been placed on record. In order to further justify the reasonable cause for such a long delay, it was submitted that the assessee approached different consultants to understand as to how the matter may be proceeded further. Only thereafter the appeal was filed before the Appellate Tribunal. The detailed reasoning in this regard has also been mentioned in the accompanying application for seeking condonation of delay. 4. Apart from this, Ld. AR also submitted that the main issue contained in this appeal is challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in denial of claim of Sec. 80(P)(2)(d) of the Act which otherwise is a covered issue by the decision of Coordinate Bench of ITAT and in this regard assessee has referred the following cases: 1. Aqua Co-op Housing Society Ltd Vs. ITO, 408/Mum/2015. 2. ACIT Vs. The Jawahar Nagar Co-op Housing Society Ltd, 6252 & 6253/Mum/2016. 3. Mhatre Palace CHSL, 6394/Mum/2024 3 ITA No. 1446/Mum/2025 Shree Saptashree Greeshma Residency -1, CHS, Mumbai 4. Navodaya Education Trust, Vs. DCIT, [2021] 130 taxmann.com 256 (Bangalore -Trib) 5. On the other hand Ld. DR contested the application for seeking condonation of delay and submitted that assessee has no sufficient cause for seeking condonation of delay. 6. After having hard both the parties and considering the explanation put forth before me and keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Collector Vs MST Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353 Supreme Court, wherein it has been held that were substantial justice is pitted against technicalities of non deliberate delay, then in that eventuality substantial justice is to be preferred. In our view the principals of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance. Hence considering the explanation put forth by the Assessee by justifiably and properly explaining the delay which occurred in filing the appeal and construing the expression \"sufficient cause\" liberally I am inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before us. Therefore I condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 7. After having gone through the facts of the present case I noticed that Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on technical ground and has not adjudicated the same on merits. 4 ITA No. 1446/Mum/2025 Shree Saptashree Greeshma Residency -1, CHS, Mumbai 8. Be that as it may, by taking into consideration the decisions relying upon by the assessee and without going into the merits of the issues raised by the assessee, Bench is of the view that matter be restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating the issues afresh on merits by considering the cases relied upon by the assessee of Coordinate Benches of ITAT and by providing one more opportunity to the assessee. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings. 9. Before parting, I make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by the Ld.CIT(A) independently in accordance with law. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 29.04.2025. Sd/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 29/04/2025 KRK, PS 5 ITA No. 1446/Mum/2025 Shree Saptashree Greeshma Residency -1, CHS, Mumbai आदेश की \bितिलिप अ\u000eेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. \u000eथ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु\u0019 / The CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयु\u0019(अपील) / Concerned CIT 5. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मु\u0003बई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स\u000eािपत ित //True Copy// 1. उप/सहायक पंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मु\u0003बई मु\u0003बई मु\u0003बई मु\u0003बई / ITAT, Mumbai "