SONHIRA SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT ,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 41(2)(5), MUMBAI

ITA 2567/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Sonhira Shakari Patpedhi Maryadit, a cooperative society, appealing against the order of the CIT(A) Agra, which dismissed their appeal concerning the assessment year 2017-18. The primary contention was the incorrect application of tax deductions under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and issues related to the non-receipt of notices and the opportunity to contest the intimation order. The appellant argued that the CIT(A) did not consider relevant Supreme Court and High Court judgments that supported their claim. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately addressed these issues and had dismissed the appeal based on non-compliance with procedural requirements without further inquiry.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 713263 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAVIN SALUNKHE
• Assessee Lawyers: R.M. HAGIR
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Non compliance

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H (SMC)” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 2567/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sonhira Shakari Patpedhi Maryadit, Omkar Tenants Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Indira Nagar, Kanjur Village Road, Kanjurmarg East, Mumbai-400042. Vs. ITO-41(2)(5), 8th floor, Kautilya Bhavan, BKC, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. PAN NO. AAEAS 6698 D Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. R.M. Hagir, CA Revenue by : Mr. Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 03/07/2025 Date of pronouncement : 31/07/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order dated 27.06.2024 passed by the Ld. Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Agra [hereinafter shall be referred as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2017-18, raising following grounds: Printed from counselvise.com 1. Under the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, APPEALS ADDL/JCIT(A)AGRA has erred in passing the order dismissing the appeal without appreciating the latest Honorable Supreme Court Order as well as many High Court and Tribunal Judgement, which has upheld the cl deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 claimed by the appellant society. 2. Under the facts and in the circumstances of the law the learned COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, APPEALS ADDL/JCIT(A), AGRA has erred in passing applying his mind at all to the grounds of appeall and statement of facts and revised computation of income filed with Form No.35. 3. Under the facts and in the circumstances of the law the learned COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, APP ADDL/JCIT(A), AGRA has erred in not serving proper notices of hearing and deprived the opportunity to the appellant to file documents in support of grounds of appeal and to rebut the intimation order. The appellant was prevented from filing the docume submission to substantiate its claim of wrongful calculation of tax liability. 4. 4 Under the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , APPEALS ADDL/JCIT(A), proper opportunity to the appellant to save from mistake of the professional who has filed ITR wrongful computation of income, instead of ITR to the appellant to claim the deduction u/s. 80P income tax Act, 1961 of the interest earned from the cooperative banks of Rs.6,49,533.00. 5. 5 The CIT appeal erred in confirming the interest20,585.00 levied by the Deputy Director of Income Tax, CPC u/s 234(A) of Rs.685.00, u/s 234(B) of Rs. 1 Rs.3,460.00 6. 6 The Appellant is facing financial difficulties since Covid 19 epidemic. The undue burden of tax is coming on society due to mistakes made by professional who had filed wrong income tax return form. Hence, Appellant opportunity to rectify the genuine mistake in computing 2. At the outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has drawn our attention to the application filed seeking Sonhira Shakari Patpedhi ITA No. 2567/MUM/2025 Under the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in w the learned COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, APPEALS ADDL/JCIT(A)AGRA has erred in passing the order dismissing the appeal without appreciating the latest Honorable Supreme Court Order as well as many High Court and Tribunal Judgement, which has upheld the cl deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 claimed by the appellant society. Under the facts and in the circumstances of the law the learned COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, APPEALS ADDL/JCIT(A), AGRA has erred in passing the order by not applying his mind at all to the grounds of appeall and statement of facts and revised computation of income filed with Form No.35. Under the facts and in the circumstances of the law the learned COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, APP ADDL/JCIT(A), AGRA has erred in not serving proper notices of hearing and deprived the opportunity to the appellant to file documents in support of grounds of appeal and to rebut the intimation order. The appellant was prevented from filing the documents in support of grounds of appeal and written submission to substantiate its claim of wrongful calculation of tax liability. 4 Under the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , APPEALS ADDL/JCIT(A), AGRA has erred in not giving proper opportunity to the appellant to save from mistake of the professional who has filed ITR-7 Form wrongly based on wrongful computation of income, instead of ITR to the appellant to claim the deduction u/s. 80P income tax Act, 1961 of the interest earned from the cooperative banks of Rs.6,49,533.00. 5 The CIT appeal erred in confirming the interest20,585.00 levied by the Deputy Director of Income Tax, CPC u/s 234(A) of Rs.685.00, u/s 234(B) of Rs. 16,440.00 and u/s 234(C) of Rs.3,460.00 6 The Appellant is facing financial difficulties since Covid 19 epidemic. The undue burden of tax is coming on society due to mistakes made by professional who had filed wrong income tax return form. Hence, Appellant be granted an opportunity to rectify the genuine mistake in computing Taxable income. At the outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has drawn our attention to the application filed seeking Sonhira Shakari Patpedhi Maryadit 2 ITA No. 2567/MUM/2025 Under the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in w the learned COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, APPEALS ADDL/JCIT(A)AGRA has erred in passing the order dismissing the appeal without appreciating the latest Honorable Supreme Court Order as well as many High Court and Tribunal Judgement, which has upheld the claim of deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, Under the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, APPEALS the order by not applying his mind at all to the grounds of appeall and statement of facts and revised computation of income filed Under the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, APPEALS ADDL/JCIT(A), AGRA has erred in not serving proper notices of hearing and deprived the opportunity to the appellant to file documents in support of grounds of appeal and to rebut the intimation order. The appellant was prevented from filing nts in support of grounds of appeal and written submission to substantiate its claim of wrongful calculation 4 Under the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , AGRA has erred in not giving proper opportunity to the appellant to save from mistake of 7 Form wrongly based on wrongful computation of income, instead of ITR-5 applicable to the appellant to claim the deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the income tax Act, 1961 of the interest earned from the 5 The CIT appeal erred in confirming the interest20,585.00 levied by the Deputy Director of Income Tax, CPC u/s 234(A) 6,440.00 and u/s 234(C) of 6 The Appellant is facing financial difficulties since Covid 19 epidemic. The undue burden of tax is coming on society due to mistakes made by professional who had filed wrong be granted an opportunity to rectify the genuine mistake in At the outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has drawn our attention to the application filed seeking Printed from counselvise.com condonation of delay Appellate Tribunal. The record reveals that the impugned order passed by the ld CIT(A) is dated has been filed before the ITAT on a delay of 290 days. it has been submitted that the appellant had not received the intimation of the appellate order and, therefore, could not file the appeal in time. It has further been submitted that the appellant is not well-versed with the procedural and electronic formalities of income-tax filing and assessment and had relied entirely upon professionals. According to the appellant, although an online rectification application was filed against the intimation order dated 01.03.2019 under section 143(1) of the Act, the same was neither disposed of nor any communication was received from the Department. The appellant contends that only upon receiving a communication dated Assessing Officer forwarding the dismissal order dated was the appellant made aware of the fate of the earlier proceedings. Consequently, the present appeal was filed. The relevant extract from the written submission filed by the assessee reads as under: “The appeal was filed against the Intimation Order dated 01.03.2019 passed under section 143(1) of the INCOME Tax Act, 1961 by CPC, Bengaluru for A.Y.2017 before CIT(Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal ADDL/JCIT(A) AGRA DISMISSED th the ground of all notices served upon the appellant were not responded. However, by dismissing the appeal he violated the Sonhira Shakari Patpedhi ITA No. 2567/MUM/2025 in preferring the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The record reveals that the impugned order passed by the ld CIT(A) is dated 27.06.2024, whereas the appeal has been filed before the ITAT on 15.04.2025, thereby occasioning . In support of the application for condonation, it has been submitted that the appellant had not received the intimation of the appellate order and, therefore, could not file the appeal in time. It has further been submitted that the appellant is versed with the procedural and electronic formalities of tax filing and assessment and had relied entirely upon professionals. According to the appellant, although an online rectification application was filed against the intimation order dated 01.03.2019 under section 143(1) of the Act, the same was neither disposed of nor any communication was received from the Department. The appellant contends that only upon receiving a communication dated 03.04.2025 from the Jurisdictional forwarding the dismissal order dated was the appellant made aware of the fate of the earlier proceedings. Consequently, the present appeal was filed. The relevant extract from the written submission filed by the assessee reads as under: ppeal was filed against the Intimation Order dated 01.03.2019 passed under section 143(1) of the INCOME Tax Act, 1961 by CPC, Bengaluru for A.Y.2017-18 on 22.03.2024 before CIT(Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal ADDL/JCIT(A) AGRA DISMISSED the appeal on 27.06.2024 on the ground of all notices served upon the appellant were not responded. However, by dismissing the appeal he violated the Sonhira Shakari Patpedhi Maryadit 3 ITA No. 2567/MUM/2025 in preferring the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The record reveals that the impugned order , whereas the appeal , thereby occasioning In support of the application for condonation, it has been submitted that the appellant had not received the intimation of the appellate order and, therefore, could not file the appeal in time. It has further been submitted that the appellant is versed with the procedural and electronic formalities of tax filing and assessment and had relied entirely upon professionals. According to the appellant, although an online rectification application was filed against the intimation order dated 01.03.2019 under section 143(1) of the Act, the same was neither disposed of nor any communication was received from the Department. The appellant contends that only upon receiving a from the Jurisdictional forwarding the dismissal order dated 27.06.2024, was the appellant made aware of the fate of the earlier proceedings. Consequently, the present appeal was filed. The relevant extract from the written submission filed by the assessee reads as under: ppeal was filed against the Intimation Order dated 01.03.2019 passed under section 143(1) of the INCOME Tax 18 on 22.03.2024 before CIT(Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal e appeal on 27.06.2024 on the ground of all notices served upon the appellant were not responded. However, by dismissing the appeal he violated the Printed from counselvise.com provisions of Section 250 (4) of IT Act. Before dismissing an appeal, the Commissioner may find a reason to inquiries himself or order an Assessing Officer to inquire and give a report to him, which he has failed to do. Hence online application was made for rectification of appeal order vide Rectification ref no 355560330060824 dtd.6.8.2024 under sec 154: ITBA/APL/ S/250/2024 ACKNOLEGED. It was informed that any progress on the status will be updated by concerned CIT(A)/NFAC. However, we have not received any communication from CIT(A)/NFAC till today. Letter written to AO, but are unable to contact the CIT(A)/NFAC THE MATTER FOR HEARING OF OUR APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION of appeal order. Since no response was received again the Grievance was raised on 12.02.2025, which is not resolved till today. In the meantime, the appellant received letter from Jurisdictional Income Tax Officer, Ward 41(2)(5), Mumbai dtd.03.04.2025 informing that the resolution of the grievance \"The order u/s.250 of the IT Act passed by Ld.CIT(A) on 27.06.2024 and enclosed the appellant is filing 2.1 Having considered the explanation furnished, and upon perusal of the record, we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeal was caused due to due to any deliberate inaction or negligence on the part of the appellant. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 2.2 Turning to the merits of the matter, the impugned order of the CIT(A) indicates that the appeal before him was dismissed for compliance, observing that the appellant had failed to respond to multiple statutory notices issued through the Income Tax Busi Sonhira Shakari Patpedhi ITA No. 2567/MUM/2025 provisions of Section 250 (4) of IT Act. Before dismissing an appeal, the Commissioner may find a reason to conduct further inquiries himself or order an Assessing Officer to inquire and give a report to him, which he has failed to do. Hence online application was made for rectification of appeal order vide Rectification ref no 355560330060824 dtd.6.8.2024 sec 154: ITBA/APL/ S/250/2024-25/1066113846(1) IS ACKNOLEGED. It was informed that any progress on the status will be updated by concerned CIT(A)/NFAC. However, we have not received any communication from CIT(A)/NFAC till today. Letter written to AO, but AO is clueless about the matter. We are unable to contact the CIT(A)/NFAC THE MATTER FOR HEARING OF OUR APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION of appeal order. Since no response was received again the Grievance was raised on 12.02.2025, which is not resolved till oday. In the meantime, the appellant received letter from Jurisdictional Income Tax Officer, Ward 41(2)(5), Mumbai dtd.03.04.2025 informing that the resolution of the grievance \"The order u/s.250 of the IT Act passed by Ld.CIT(A) on 27.06.2024 and enclosed the appeal dismissal order. Hence the appellant is filing the appeal now.” Having considered the explanation furnished, and upon perusal of the record, we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeal was caused due to sufficient and bona fide rea due to any deliberate inaction or negligence on the part of the appellant. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. Turning to the merits of the matter, the impugned order of the CIT(A) indicates that the appeal before him was dismissed for observing that the appellant had failed to respond to multiple statutory notices issued through the Income Tax Busi Sonhira Shakari Patpedhi Maryadit 4 ITA No. 2567/MUM/2025 provisions of Section 250 (4) of IT Act. Before dismissing an conduct further inquiries himself or order an Assessing Officer to inquire and Hence online application was made for rectification of appeal order vide Rectification ref no 355560330060824 dtd.6.8.2024 25/1066113846(1) IS ACKNOLEGED. It was informed that any progress on the status will be updated by concerned CIT(A)/NFAC. However, we have not received any communication from CIT(A)/NFAC till today. AO is clueless about the matter. We are unable to contact the CIT(A)/NFAC THE MATTER FOR HEARING OF OUR APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION of appeal order. Since no response was received again the Grievance was raised on 12.02.2025, which is not resolved till oday. In the meantime, the appellant received letter from Jurisdictional Income Tax Officer, Ward 41(2)(5), Mumbai dtd.03.04.2025 informing that the resolution of the grievance \"The order u/s.250 of the IT Act passed by Ld.CIT(A) on the appeal dismissal order. Hence Having considered the explanation furnished, and upon perusal of the record, we are satisfied that the delay in filing the sufficient and bona fide reasons, and not due to any deliberate inaction or negligence on the part of the appellant. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. Turning to the merits of the matter, the impugned order of the CIT(A) indicates that the appeal before him was dismissed for non- observing that the appellant had failed to respond to multiple statutory notices issued through the Income Tax Business Printed from counselvise.com Application (ITBA). The order records the following details of non compliance: S. No. Notice issue date (through ITBA) 1 15.05.2024 2 03.06.2024 3 12.06.2024 4 20.06.2024 2.3 The CIT(A), in dismissing the appeal, observed that: 4. Decision I, have carefully gone through the facts of the case. Moreover, all notices were duly served upon the appellant through email. The appellant opted not to respond the above notices for reason best known to them. No documents were produced before me in support of his grounds of appeal or to rebut the intimation order. In view of appellant is not interested in prosecuting the present appeal on merits and therefore in absence of any evidence to rebut the intimation order, the intimation order is CONFIRMED and accordingly the appeal is dismissed appeal raised by the appellant 3. We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue and have also perused the material placed on record. While the appellant has failed to respond to the notices, the explanation for such no compliance, as noted in the condonation application and supporting affidavit, cannot be dismissed lightly. Moreover, it is evident that Sonhira Shakari Patpedhi ITA No. 2567/MUM/2025 Application (ITBA). The order records the following details of non Notice issue date (through ITBA) Date of compliance Response of appellant 15.05.2024 30.05.2024 No written submission filed in support of grounds of appeal. No request of adjournment made. 03.06.2024 10.06.2024 12.06.2024 19.06.2024 20.06.2024 26.06.2024 The CIT(A), in dismissing the appeal, observed that: I, have carefully gone through the facts of the case. Moreover, were duly served upon the appellant through email. The appellant opted not to respond the above notices for reason best known to them. No documents were produced before me in support of his grounds of appeal or to rebut the intimation order. In view of the above facts, it is clear that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the present appeal on merits and therefore in absence of any evidence to rebut the intimation order, the intimation order is CONFIRMED and accordingly the appeal is dismissed. Hence all ground of appeal raised by the appellant are dismissed.” We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue and have also perused the material placed on record. While the appellant has failed to respond to the notices, the explanation for such no compliance, as noted in the condonation application and supporting affidavit, cannot be dismissed lightly. Moreover, it is evident that Sonhira Shakari Patpedhi Maryadit 5 ITA No. 2567/MUM/2025 Application (ITBA). The order records the following details of non Response of appellant No written submission filed in support of grounds of appeal. No request of adjournment The CIT(A), in dismissing the appeal, observed that: I, have carefully gone through the facts of the case. Moreover, were duly served upon the appellant through email. The appellant opted not to respond the above notices for the reason best known to them. No documents were produced before me in support of his grounds of appeal or to rebut the the above facts, it is clear that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the present appeal on merits and therefore in absence of any evidence to rebut the intimation order, the intimation order is CONFIRMED and . Hence all ground of We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue and have also perused the material placed on record. While the appellant has failed to respond to the notices, the explanation for such non- compliance, as noted in the condonation application and supporting affidavit, cannot be dismissed lightly. Moreover, it is evident that Printed from counselvise.com the CIT(A) did not adjudicate the matter on merits considered opinion, the order of the CIT(A) suffers from infirmity. Given the peculiar facts and circumstances, and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to dated 27.06.2024 passed by the back to him for fresh adjudication affording due and adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant. In the result, grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed. 4. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Sd/ (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN 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// Sonhira Shakari Patpedhi ITA No. 2567/MUM/2025 did not adjudicate the matter on merits considered opinion, the order of the CIT(A) suffers from Given the peculiar facts and circumstances, and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside passed by the ld. CIT(A), and remit the matter fresh adjudication in accordance w affording due and adequate opportunity of being heard to the In the result, grounds of appeal of the assessee are In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical Order pronounced in the open Court on 31/07/2025. Sd/- Sd/ (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Sonhira Shakari Patpedhi Maryadit 6 ITA No. 2567/MUM/2025 did not adjudicate the matter on merits. In our considered opinion, the order of the CIT(A) suffers from procedural Given the peculiar facts and circumstances, and in the set aside the order and remit the matter in accordance with law after affording due and adequate opportunity of being heard to the In the result, grounds of appeal of the assessee are In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical /07/2025. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "