KRISHNA RESIDENCY A B AND C CO - OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD. 41(3)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
(Physical hearing)
Krishna Residency A B And C Co-Operative
Housing Society Limited,
Society Office, C Wing, Krishna Residency
A B And C CHS Ltd., Behind Sunder Nagar,
Malad West, Mumbai – 400064. [PAN: AAABK0296L]
Vs
ITO, Ward – 41(3)(2), Mumbai
Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla
Complex, Mumbai -400051. Appellant / Assessee
Respondent / Revenue
Assessee by Shri Ashok Bansal, CA
Revenue by Shri Vikash Chandra, Addl. CIT
Date of Institution
28.07.2025
Date of hearing
09.09.2025
Date of pronouncement
19.09.2025
Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act
PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)/ADDL/JCIT(A)-7, Delhi dated 08.07.2025 for assessment year (AY) 2016-17. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. The Id.CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as not admitted for the delayed filing of appeal by 2240 days.
i. In doing so, Id. CIT(A) erred in holding that no sufficient cause was provided by the appellant for the delay.
ii. Further in doing so, the Ild.CIT(A) did not appreciate that the Apex Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC) has held that liberal approach should be considered in deciding the petition for condonation as the assessee is not going to achieve any benefit for the delay and in fact, the assessee is at risk.
The adjustment made to the income returned in the Intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act by the CPC, Bengaluru is without the authority of law in as much as Krishna Residency A B And C Co-operative Housing Society Limited 2
no prior intimation was given of the such adjustment which is a condition precedent for such an action.
The CPC, Bengaluru in processing the return & in making the adjustment to the income returned did not appreciate that the appellant was a cooperative housing society and, therefore, the interest from Co operative bank is not taxable in view of deduction available u/s 80P of the Act and that based on the principle of mutuality, the excess of contributions from members over the expenditure incurred is also not taxable, and that the interest from bank other than the Co-operative bank is the only income which is liable to tax.
The CPC, Bengaluru further did not appreciate that the authorities under the Act are required to assist the assessee and ensure that only due legitimate taxes are levied and that acquiescence cannot take away from a party the relief he is entitled to and that the taxes carinot be levied or collected without the authority of law.
Your appellant, therefore, submits that the adjustments made to the income returned be deleted and in the alternative suitable relief be allowed.
Your appellant craves leave to add to, delete, amend or alter all or any of the grounds of appeal at or before the date of hearing.”
Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that appeal of the assessee was dismissed by ld CIT(A), as unadmitted in not condoning delay in filing appeal in order dated 08.07.2025. The CPC processed the return of A.Y. 2016-17 on 14.06.2018. The assessee filed appeal before ld. CIT(A) on 30.08.2024. Thus, there was delay of 2240 days in filing appeal before First Appellate Authority. The assessee was not aware about intimation/order of CPC as it was not served upon the assessee either through registered email id or otherwise. The assessee was not having practice to check their email regularly. The assessee came to know Intimation of order by CPC was received only in 1st week of August, 2024. The assessee Krishna Residency A B And C Co-operative Housing Society Limited 3
filed appeal first appeal on 30.08.2024 with the request to condone the delay. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that he has filed affidavit of Ms.
Madhavi Mahesh Nighoskar, Honorary Secretary of assessee society. The delay in filing appeal was not intentional or deliberate. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessee has good case on merit and is likely to succeed, if, delay in filing appeal is condoned and matter is considered on merit. The CPC has no authority to make adjustment as no prior intimation or notice was given to assessee before making any adjustment, which is a primary condition. The CPC not allowed the deduction under section 80P. The ld. AR of assessee prayed that delay may be condoned and appeal may be adjudicated on merit. In alternative, it was prayed that after condoning the delay in filing appeal, matter may be restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merit.
3. On the other hand, learned senior departmental representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue opposed the plea of assessee for condoning the delay. The ld. Sr. DR for the revenue submits that while filing appeal before ld. CIT(A), the assessee in Form 35 has mentioned that impugned order / order of CPC dated 14.06.2018 was served on same day i.e. 14.06.2018. The assessee in Form 35, in column 15 further submitted that “Intimation under section 143(1) of the Act dt. 14.06.2018 did not come to the attention of the appellant as the email mobile phone registered with the Dept. remained to be updated with the changed id cess no and that there was no practice to check the e proceeding account at regular intervals. This happened as there was a regime change with regard to e assessments etc. to which the Krishna Residency A B And C Co-operative Housing Society Limited
4
assessee’s especially the Co-op Hsg Soc such as the appellant are not yet accustomed.” The assessee is regularly filing return of income and in fact filed return of income for A.Y. 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21. The assessee cannot take lame excuse in seeking condonation of delay. The delay is not properly explained with bona fide reasons. The ld. CIT(A) in para 2.3
to 2.8 has discussed the issue of limitation at length and clearly held that assessee has not explained the delay. There is inordinate delay in filing appeal before First Appellate Authority. The delay may not be condoned and the appeal may be dismissed in limine.
4. I have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. I find that for A.Y. 2016-17, the assessee filed return of income on 08.09.2017. The CPC issued intimation under section 143(1) on 14.08.2018. The first appeal before ld. CIT(A) is filed only on 30.08.2024. Thus, there was delay of 2240 days in filing appeal before First Appellate Authority. In para 3 of Form 35 in Column 2, the assessee has mentioned the date of service of order / notice of demand on 14.06.2018. However, in Column 11, the assessee pleaded something different. Thus, the stand of assessee before ld. CIT(A) is contradictory. Even if, it is presumed that intimation was not served on 14.06.2018, the assessee has not explained as to how they came to know in 1st week of August, 2024, no such supporting evidence or corroborative fact is brought on record. Thus, in my considered view, the assessee failed to explain the delay in proper manner. Resultantly, the assessee failed to explain the delay that it was not Krishna Residency A B And C Co-operative Housing Society Limited
5
mala fide. Hence, I do not find any good reason to set aside the order of ld
CIT(A) in not condoning the delay in filing first appeal, which I affirm.
5. In the result, grounds of appeal of assessee are dismissed.
6. In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed.
Order was pronounced in the open Court on 19/09/2025. PAWAN SINGH
JUDICIAL MEMBER
MUMBAI, Dated: 19/09/2025
Biswajit
Copy of the order forwarded to:
(1)
The Assessee;
(2)
The Revenue;
(3)
The PCIT / CIT (Judicial);
(4)
The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; and (5)
Guard file.
By Order