TRIMURTI CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 19(3)(1),MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBER, MUMBAI

ITA 3648/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Trimurti Co-operative Credit Society Limited appealing against the order of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, which dismissed their appeal due to a delay of 821 days in filing. The delay was attributed to the assessee's belief that a rectification application under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, would resolve the disallowance of their claim under section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's explanation for the delay and decided to remand the case back to the CIT(A) for a detailed examination of the delay's reasons and the substantive issues of the case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 716469 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 23-05-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ADITYA RAI
• Assessee Lawyers: SATYAPRAKASH SINGH
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Principle of natural justice; Rectification of order; Co-operative Credit Society
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण Ûयायपीठ मुंबई मɅ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “J (SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.3648/MUM/2025 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year :2019-20 Trimurti Co-operative Credit Society Limited 2 Ground Floor, Suparshwa Darshan CHS V.P Road, Mumbai-400 004 PAN : AABAT8982E ........अपीलाथȸ / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-19(3)(1), Mumbai ……Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Satya Prakash Singh Revenue by : Shri Aditya Rai, Sr. DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing :21.08.2025 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 22.08.2025 Printed from counselvise.com 2 Trimurti Co-operative Credit Society Limited Vs. ITO, Ward-19(3)(1), Mumbai ITA No.3648 /MUM/2025 आदेश / ORDER PER ARUN KHODPIA, AM: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, dated 30.04.2025 for the assessment year 2019-20 as per the following grounds of appeal: “I. The order dated 30/04/2025 bearing No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1075894863[I] Passed under section 250 of Income Tax Act.1961 by the Hon'ble CIT[Appeal], ADDL/JCIT (A)-7, DELHI is unreasonable, arbitrary, against the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore liable to be quashed. 2. On the facts and in circumstance of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT [Appeal] ADDL/JC1T (A)-7, Delhi has erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal even though the sufficient reason for the said delay was furnished by the Appellant. 3 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Honorable CIT [Appeal) ADDUJCIT (A) -7 Delhi has erred in not adjudicating the Grounds of Appeal raised by the Appellant for denying the deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act,1961. 4. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend or alter the above grounds as may be deemed necessary.” 2. At the very outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the delay of 821 days in filing of appeal before the first appellate authority was occasioned, accordingly the appeal of the assessee was dismissed on account of delay itself. He further submitted that the reason for delay could not be furnished by the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A). Before us, he explained that the delay was occurred because after disallowance/additions as per intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Printed from counselvise.com 3 Trimurti Co-operative Credit Society Limited Vs. ITO, Ward-19(3)(1), Mumbai ITA No.3648 /MUM/2025 Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), wherein the claim of assessee u/s 80P(2)(d) was denied, in recourse, the assessee chooses to use the remedy available u/s. 154 of the Act. Accordingly, an application for rectification was filed by the assessee. However, the rectification as sought by the assessee u/s. 154 of the Act was not disposed off by the department, whereas, the assessee was under Bonafide impression that the disallowance made would be rectified u/s. 154 of the Act. In such circumstances, on account of pendency of assessee’s application u/s 154, the appeal was not filed by the assessee in time and consequently such delay of 821 days was occasioned. It was the submission that assessee had sufficient cause to explain the delay, therefore one more opportunity to respond may be provided. 3. The Ld. Sr. DR objected to the aforesaid contention raised by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, as no evidence regarding aforesaid submissions qua filing of application u/s.154 of the Act has been furnished by the assessee. 4. After considering the rival contentions of the parties herein, we find that in the present case, the assessee, as stated at bar by the Ld Counsel of the assessee, was in the process for rectification of mistake apparent on record u/s. 154 of the Act, to which no effect was given by the department till the filing of the appeal. If such averment can be corroborated by the Printed from counselvise.com 4 Trimurti Co-operative Credit Society Limited Vs. ITO, Ward-19(3)(1), Mumbai ITA No.3648 /MUM/2025 assessee, it would be a Bonafide reasons in delayed filing the appeal before the first appellate authority. The counsel of assessee therefore directed to furnish the copy of application U/s 154. In due course, Ld AR submitted the copy of acknowledgment for rectification application u/s 154 dated 07.10.2020 (ref: 448147210070820) and an order of rectification was also passed by the CPC, however, such order was not furnished by the assessee. In view of such circumstances, it would be necessary verify from records that when the rectification order was passed, so as to decide the reasonable in the reasons for delay in filing of appeal. Copy of online submission furnished by the assessee before ld. CIT(A) dated 29.04.2024 vide acknowledgment no. 191663861290424 is also submitted before us. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, following the principle of natural justice, it would be appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for disposing the appeal after hearing the assessee on the issue of condonation of delay and if succeed, on merits of the case. Printed from counselvise.com 5 Trimurti Co-operative Credit Society Limited Vs. ITO, Ward-19(3)(1), Mumbai ITA No.3648 /MUM/2025 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd August, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- AMIT SHUKLA ARUN KHODPIA (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) मुंबई/Mumbai; Ǒदनांक / Dated : 22nd August, 2025. SB, Sr.PS (on Tour) आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ /The Appellant. 2. Ĥ×यथȸ /The Respondent. 3. आयकरआयुÈत/The CIT, Mumbai 4. Ĥधानआयकर आयुÈत/ Pr.CIT, Mumbai 5.ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण,मुंबईबɅच, मुंबई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai Benches, Mumbai. 6.गाड[ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // उप/सहायक पंजीकार )Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, मुंबई/ ITAT, Mumbai. Printed from counselvise.com "