NAVRANG BASANT CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,MUM vs. ITO WARD-17(2)(4), MUMBAI

The brief fact of the case shows that assessee is a cooperative housing society. It filed its return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 28th August, 2017, declaring total income at nil, wherein it claimed

Aggrieved by that assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT (A), who passed an order on 30th November, 2022 dismissing the appeal of the assessee. The main reason for dismissal of the appeal was with respect to the decision of the honorable Supreme Court in case of Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 123 taxmann.com 161 (SC) on 12th January, 2021. Aggrieved by that order of the learned CIT (A), assessee is in appeal before us.

The appeal of the assessee is filed late. The order of the CIT (A) was passed on 30th November, 2022 whereas the appeal was filed on 21st April, 2023, late by 82 days. The assessee has filed an application for condemnation of delay which is supported by the affidavit wherein it has been stated that assessee did not receive a copy of the order either by post or by email and therefore, he was not aware of the

The learned Departmental Representative vehemently objected to the same.

We find that assessee does not derive any benefit by filing the appeal late. Subsequently, the assessee has received the communication for the recovery of the demand, wherein it has come to its knowledge that the learned CIT (A) has passed an order against the cooperative society. As far as this argument is concerned we are not with the assessee, as such orders would always be available on portal with alert to the assessee on registered mobile number and registered email id. Further assessee does not deny that due to not taking cognizance of email and mobile alert, delay has occurred. However, after receipt of demand notice, assessee approached chartered accountant immediately and filed the appeal before us. It is also supported by an affidavit. Therefore respectfully following the decision of the honorable Supreme Court in case of Collector of Land Acquisition V. MST Khatiji & Others 167 ITR 471, wherein it has been held that in condonation of delay prayer, pedantic approach should

At the time of hearing the assessee made an application for adjournment of hearing stating that Council of the assessee is not available and therefore the matter may be adjourned. Looking to the facts of the case, we reject the application for the adjournment.

On hearing the parties we find that assessee is a cooperative society more precisely a housing society and not a cooperative bank therefore the provision section 80P (4) does not apply to assessee and therefore assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80 P (2) of the Act. Assessee has invested in saraswat Cooperative bank, shamrao Vithal cooperative bank and Maharashtra District cooperative bank limited. There is no doubt that assessee is not a cooperative bank. Section 80P (4) denies deduction to cooperative banks only. Now this view is upheld by the honourable supreme court in case of Kerala State Co-Operative Agricultural & Rural Development Bank Ltd. V Assessing Officer [2023] 154 taxmann.com 305 (SC)[14-09-2023]. In view of this, we direct the ld AO to allow deduction to assessee cooperative housing society deduction on interest income. We reverse the order of the ld CIT (A) and allow solitary issue in appeal.

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed.