VISSANJI A 1 FRIENDS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 20(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

O R D E R

PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

2 4794, 4795,4796,4800 & 4801/MUM/2025 Vissanji A 1 Friend Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.

2. Grounds taken by the assessee are reproduced as under:

AY 2011-12 “1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the respected CIT (Appeals) was not justified on rejecting the Society’s appeal petition on the ground of delay in institution of appeal and thereby erred in upholding the income determined in processing of return u/s 143(1).

2. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the respected CIT (Appeals) erred in holding that delay in filing of Income Tax return is fatal for claiming deduction u/s. 80(P)(2)d citing the provisions of Section 80AC which are not applicable for the assessment year under consideration since effective from A.Y. 2018-19.

3. Without prejudice to the above grounds of Appeal

, error in law has occurred in adjusting the returned income of the society by denying deduction claimed u/s. 80(P)(2)d in the course of processing the return of income under section 143(1) which can not be considered as prima facie adjustment falling within the scope of section 143(1)

4. On the facts and the circumstances of the case, error in law has occurred in not allowing credit of self assessment tax of Rs. 72,547/- paid by the society on 04-04-2013 for the assessment year under consideration.

5. The Appellant craves a leave to add alter and/or modify any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing of appeal.”

, 4796 & 4801/Mum/2025 AY 2013-14 to 2015-16 “1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the respected CIT (Appeals) was not justified on rejecting the Society’s appeal petition on the ground of delay in institution of appeal and thereby erred in upholding the income determined in processing of return u/s 143(1).

3 4794, 4795,4796,4800 & 4801/MUM/2025 Vissanji A 1 Friend Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.

2. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the respected CIT (Appeals) erred in holding that delay in filing of Income Tax return is fatal for claiming deduction u/s. 80(P)(2)d citing the provisions of Section 80AC which are not applicable for the assessment year under consideration since effective from A.Y. 2018-19. 3 Without prejudice to the above grounds of Appeal

, error in law has occurred in adjusting the returned income of the society by denying deduction claimed u/s. 80(P)(2)d in the course of processing the return of income under section 143(1) which can not be considered as prima facie adjustment falling within the scope of section 143(1)

4. The Appellant craves a leave to add alter and/or modify any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing of appeal.”

AY 2012-13 “1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the respected CIT (Appeals) was not justified on rejecting the Society’s appeal petition on the ground of delay in institution of appeal and thereby erred in upholding the income determined in processing of return u/s 143(1).

2. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the respected CIT (Appeals) erred in holding that delay in filing of Income Tax return is fatal for claiming deduction u/s. 80(P)(2)d citing the provisions of Section 80AC which are not applicable for the assessment year under consideration since effective from A.Y. 2018-19.

3. Without prejudice to the above grounds of Appeal

, error in law has occurred in adjusting the returned income of the society by denying deduction claimed u/s. 80(P)(2)d in the course of processing the return of income under section 143(1) which can not be considered as prima facie adjustment falling within the scope of section 143(1)

4. On the facts and the circumstances of the case, error in law has occurred in not allowing credit of self assessment tax of Rs. 44,990/- paid by the society on 04-04-2013 for the assessment year under consideration.

5. The Appellant craves a leave to add alter and/or modify any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing of appeal.”

2.1. Identical issues are raised in all the five appeals by the assessee accept for verification in the quantum of disallowance. Accordingly, all these appeals are taken up together for adjudication by passing this consolidated order. We take appeal for assessment year 2015-16 in as the lead case to draw our facts. Our observations and findings in this appeal shall apply mutatis mutandis

4 4794, 4795,4796,4800 & 4801/MUM/2025 Vissanji A 1 Friend Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. to all the other four appeals. Submissions made by the assessee are same in the case of all the five appeals.

3. Pursuant to Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee, we refer to the order of Ld. CIT(A) whereby it is noted in para 2 that Form No. 35 filed by the assessee is after the time prescribed under the Act u/s. 249. Ld. CIT(A) noted that the order appealed against was served on the assessee on 20.06.2016. As per section 249(2), due date for filing of appeal was within 30 days i.e. till 20.07.2016 as intimation issued u/s. 143(1) is dated 18.06.2016. However, assessee filed its appeal only on 16.11.2023, that is after a period of seven years and one month. Ld. CIT(A) dealt with the explanation furnished by the assessee explaining the substantial delay in filing the said appeal. He referred to the provisions of Section 249(2) and Section 249(3) to note that under the said section, the delay may be condone and the appeal may be admitted only if assessee could successfully demonstrate that it had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the period of 30 days. He elaborated on the meaning of “sufficient cause” for the purpose of considering the petition for condonation of delay with reference to several judicial presidents in this respect. He thus, concluded that assessee had not furnished any reasonable cause which prevented it from filing the appeal within the 30 days’ time limit. Thus, on account of inordinate delay of more than 7 years and failure on the part of the assessee to furnish sufficient cause explaining such inordinate delay, Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the said delay. He thus, did not admit the appeal and rejected it, treating the appeal as dismissed.

3.1. Even though the appeal was not admitted and dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A), he proceeded to discuss on the facts of the case and 5 4794, 4795,4796,4800 & 4801/MUM/2025 Vissanji A 1 Friend Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. confirmed the disallowance made by the Ld. AO holding his action as correct by applying the provisions of Section 80AC of the Act.

4. In the above backdrop, we take note of the facts relevant to the assessee. Assessee is a cooperative housing society, registered under Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 with registration No. BOM/HSG/FN/8793. It filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 31.03.2016 reporting total income at Rs.4,86,670/- which included income from house property and income from other sources, mainly interest received. Assessee claimed deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of Rs. 1,54,008/- in respect of interest income. Return of the assessee was processed by Centralised Processing Centre of the Income Tax Department (CPC), Bengaluru for which intimation u/s. 143(1) was issued dated 16.08.2016. At Serial No.12 of the said intimation which mentions about deduction under Chapter VI-A under the column “as provided by tax payer in the return of income”, the amount reflected is Rs.1,54,008/-. Against this, in the column “as computed u/s. 143(1)”, it is mentioned as “0”. Thus, the total income arrived at by CPC on processing of the return is at Rs. 5,03,380/- as against returned income of Rs. 3,49,370/-. This resulted into a net amount of tax payable of Rs. 60,853/- as mentioned in row at Serial No. 51 of the intimation. Thus, upon processing of this return, after disallowing the claim of deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of Rs.1,54,008/-, a demand of Rs. 60,850/- was raised. Assessee moved first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) by filling Form No. 35 with delay of seven years and one months for which we have already narrated the facts in the above paragraphs.

7 4794, 4795,4796,4800 & 4801/MUM/2025 Vissanji A 1 Friend Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.

5.1. From the aforesaid table, it is noted that in all the 5 years, assessee has filed the return after the prescribed due date of filing the return. Also, first appeal filed by the assessee in all the five years has inordinate delay of several years. Further, there is a delay of 342 days in all these 5 appeals while filing it before the Tribunal. Thus, at every stage, even though the assessee has taken the actions but has gone beyond the prescribed limitation. Also, we referee to the affidavit dated 08.07.2025 wherein in para 4, it is mentioned that the accountant who looked after the affairs of the assessee, discontinued his services since 2023. It is noted that in the affidavit dated 08.10.2025, it is mentioned that he left the job sometime in August, 2024. In para 8, assessee mentions that delay in filing of appeal is resulted from unusual circumstances beyond control and is not intentional and also, is on 8 4794, 4795,4796,4800 & 4801/MUM/2025 Vissanji A 1 Friend Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. account of bonafide reasons. However, there is no explanation with any cogent material to demonstrate the unusual circumstances which were beyond the control of the assessee which led to inordinate delay of several years in filing the first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). On referring to Form No. 35 filed by the assessee in respect of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), in Row No. 14, on the question “whether there is delay in filing the appeal” it is mentioned as “yes”. The grounds for condonation of delay mentions at Serial No. 15 as “society is handled by senior citizens who were unaware about the procedure of appeal with Ld. CIT(A)”. Thus in Form No. 35, assessee has expressed its ignorance on the law for taking appropriate action.

5.2. We reproduce contents of both the affidavits for ready reference:

A. “Affidavit dated 08.10.2025 “Petition for Condonation of delay in filing the appeal 1. I have to state that I, Manshalal Manikchand Gajani aged 75 years, am the Secretary of Vissanji Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the he Society) and I am authorised to file the petition for condonation of delay as per the Managing Committee resolution date 12th April 2025.

5. Society has filed an appeal before Hon. Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai vide for AY 2011-12 (4800/Mum/2025 for AY-2012-13, 4795/Mum/2025 for AY-2013-14, 4796/Mum/2025 for AY-2014- 15, 4801/Mum/2025 for AY-2015-16) against the disallowance of Deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the "Act") by Hon. Addl/Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax-(A)-2, Ludhiana for not providing

9 4794, 4795,4796,4800 & 4801/MUM/2025 Vissanji A 1 Friend Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.

Sufficient Cause for the delay in filing the appeal and also by rejecting Society's claim for Deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act also on Merits.

7. The history of communications from Income Tax Department shows that there are delays in filing the IT Returns. However, the same have been filed before getting time barred.

8. It may also be seen that after the Intimations u/s 143(1) of the Act were received, there was huge delay in filing the 1st Appeal before the Commissioner of Income tax. The delays are indeed huge as mentioned in the chart given below. But there cannot be any bad intention behind making these delays.

9. In fact, on perusal of the Intimations u/s 143(1) of the Act, read with the information extracted and stated in the Chart / Analysis given below, it appears that Income Tax Department has made grave mistakes too. In this connection I wish to draw the attention of Honourable Judges of ITAT, Mumbai to the fact that On the Intimations issued by CPC, Page Number 2 for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2013-14 and Page numbers 5 for Assessment Years 2014-15 and 2015-16, there are two columns, one of which states the Society's Claim for Deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the parallel column states the amount approved/calculated by the Department under section 143(1) of the Act. It may be noted that Society's claim is fully approved on the said pages. However, while making the Totals the Calculation of the Income Tax Department does not reflect/include the said deduction amount under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. There is not even a clarificatory note appended in the respective Intimations. Which should certainly mean that there is No Disallowance of Deduction u/s BOP(2)(d) of the Act. However, due to the incorrect total there is a disallowance. This is Unfair, Arbitrary and illegal. Society certainly deserves relief in this regard.

10 4794, 4795,4796,4800 & 4801/MUM/2025 Vissanji A 1 Friend Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.

11. The said Chandu Desai had probably noticed the Orders passed by Hon NFAC in our case and therefore, out of fear, he quietly left the job sometime in August 2024.

11 4794, 4795,4796,4800 & 4801/MUM/2025 Vissanji A 1 Friend Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.

6. I have to state that only on receipt of this communication, the managing committee became aware that for communication with income tax department, email id of the accountant has been provided. Thereafter, the managing

12 4794, 4795,4796,4800 & 4801/MUM/2025 Vissanji A 1 Friend Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. committee decided to seek professional help to deal with the Income Tax liabilities arising consequent to dismissal of the Society's Income tax Appeals.

8. I have to state that Since, there is delay in the institution of present appeal, the society is approaching the Ho. Tribunal with kind request for condonation of delay. It can be appreciated that on knowing that the society's Appeals are dismissed, immediately the steps have been taken to file second appeal. The delay in filing of appeal is resulting from the unusual circumstances beyond control and is not intentional and is on account of Bonafide reasons.

10. I have to state that the society has made an application for condonation of delay while filing an appeal before ITAT.

6. From the chronology of proceedings at all stages, it is evident that assessee has failed to comply with the prescribed limitation for which nothing cogent has been brought on record. The plea raised by the assessee in its affidavit does not establish the bonafide and inspire confidence to justify condonation of delay. This present appeal is nothing but taking another chance by exploiting the process of law. Having perused the 'two affidavits furnished by the assessee as well as the appellate order of Id. CIT(A), the present appeal is filed merely to exploit the process of law, without justifiable reasons and establishment of bonafides. The conduct of assessee and the averments in the affidavit do not fall under "sufficient cause" required for the condonation of delay. Phrases like "liberal approach", "justice oriented approach" and cause for the advancement of "substantial justice" cannot be employed to defeat the law of limitation so as to allow stale matters or as a matter

13 4794, 4795,4796,4800 & 4801/MUM/2025 Vissanji A 1 Friend Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. of fact, dead matters to be revived and reopened by taking aid of the Limitation Act. The law of limitation is founded on public policy and enshrined in the legal maxim "interest reipublicae ut sit finis litiun", i.e., it is for the general welfare that the period of limitation be put to litigation. Every public policy requires that there should be an end to the litigation, otherwise it would be a dichotomy, if the litigant is made immortal, vis-à-vis the right in parties. Tax statute has provided for limitation for filing appeals before various authorities and the same provides discretionary power to the authorities for condoning delay, provided there is sufficient cause with reasonable explanation, establishing bonafides of the case.

6.1. In the present set of facts as elaborated above, and the redressal approach adopted by the assessee at the first instance, travelling from the delayed first appeal before ld. CIT(A) to now before the Tribunal with, the delay of 342 days in filing the present appeal against the first appellate order is not within the stipulated timeline and does not fall within the canons of "sufficient A cause".”

6.2. In the given set of facts and circumstances, as discussed above, we do not find any reason to condone the delay of 342 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal, to admit the appeal for its adjudication.

6.3. We also do not find any justifiable reasons explained by the assessee for the delay of more than seven years at the first appellate stage in all the 5 assessment years which could fall within the cannons of “sufficient cause” so as to condone the same and remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for meritorious adjudication. Accordingly, the appeal so filed is dismissed, on account of the aforesaid delay, without its admission for adjudication. Ground No. 1 raised by 14 4794, 4795,4796,4800 & 4801/MUM/2025 Vissanji A 1 Friend Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. the assessee is dismissed. Since the appeal by the assessee is dismissed on account of delay, without its admission for adjudication, ground raised on the merits of the case are rendered academic.

7. The factual matrix remains the same in all the other four appeals except for various in the quantum of disallowance, the number of days of delay in these four years is also in the same range as that of assessment year 2015-16 while filing the first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The first appeal in all these four years have also been dismissed by Ld. CIT(A) without admitting the appeals on account of inordinate delay, details of which are already tabulated above. Also, there is a delay of 342 days in all these four years for filing appeal before the Tribunal, for which also, no justifiable reasons have been put on record with corroborative evidences so as to fall within the meaning of sufficient cause. Accordingly, these four appeals are also dismissed in terms of our above stated observations and findings.

Order pronounced in the open court on 19.11.2025.