MAYFAIR SYMPHONY SPRINGS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DDIT, CPC, BENGALURU

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSIAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3892 & 3893/MUM/2026 (AY: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Mayfair Symphony Springs Co-Op vs. DDIT, CPC, Bengaluru Housing Society Ltd. Post Bag No 2, Electronic City Post CTS 2A,4E, Mayfair Symphony Office, Bengaluru-560500. Springs, Godrej Hiranandani Link Road, Vikhroli West, Mumbai 400079. PAN/GIR No: AABAM7851M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Ravi Dasija, CA Revenue by Smt. Sujatha Iyyanger (Sr. DR) Date of Hearing 18.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement 18.08.2026 O R D E R PER BIJYANANDA PRUSETH, AM:

These two appeals filed by the assessee emanate from the orders passed

under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act’) by the ADDL/JCIT

(A), Thriuvanantpuram, Office of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in

short, ‘CIT(A)’], both dated 04.02.2026 for the assessment years (AY) 2013-14 and

2014-15.

(AY 2013-14) are as under:

“1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant on the ground that the appeal was filed late and the reasons for delay in filing the appeal were not satisfactorily explained.

ITA Nos.3892 & 3893/MUM/2026 Mayfair Symphony Springs Co-Op Housing Society Ltd. 2. The learned CIT (A) erred in not considering on merits the ground of the Appellant that the learned AO erred in denying the exemption of Rs. 2,18,604 claimed u/s 80P by the Appellant

(AY 2014-15) are as under:

“1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant on the ground that the appeal was filed late and the reasons for delay in filing the appeal were not satisfactorily explained.

ITA No.3892/Mum/2026 (AY 2013-14)

CIT(A) on 22.01.2026 against the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act dated

10.09.2014 for AY 2013-14 by the CPC, Bengaluru. There was delay of 4029 days,

more than 11 years, in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The appellant had

submitted that adjustment made u/s 143(1) was technical in nature and the same

could be rectified or adjust through professional advice. The society did not

receive proper or timely guidance from it consultant. Due to lack of knowledge on

part of the flat owners, no corrective step was taken within the limitation period.

ITA Nos.3892 & 3893/MUM/2026 Mayfair Symphony Springs Co-Op Housing Society Ltd. The delay was not willful or deliberate but was due to circumstances beyond

control of the society. The CIT(A) did not condone the delay by observing as under:

“Before going into the merits of the case, it should be stated that in a case of this nature for condonation of delay, it is well settled that length of delay is not material, but the reasons stated thereof for condonation of delay. In other words, for condonation of delay, the reasons adduced must be properly pleaded, convincing and acceptable and explanation should be offered for condonation of the delay. It is pertinent to note that the delay may be condoned and the appeal may be admitted u/s. 249(3) only if the appellant could successfully demonstrate that it had sufficient cause within the meaning of limitation provision for not presenting the appeal within the period of 30 days.

Appeal should be filed within 30 days of the service of notice/intimation u/s 143(1). The appellant has stated that the delay is due to lack of awareness, absence of professional guidance and bonafide belief that the adjustment made u/s 143 (1) was technical in nature and the same would be rectified or addressed through professional advice. Also, the appellant has stated that they had not received proper or timely guidance from their consultant

Unless proper explanation is offered, this office could not exercise its discretion in the proper perspective to advance substantial justice. The appellant has failed to furnish a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal after a period of more than 11 years equivalent to 4029 days at the time of filing the appeal or during the appeal proceedings. The reason mentioned by the appellant is not a sufficient reason for delay in filing of appeal after a period of more than 11 years.

In view of the negligent act, the delay in appeal filed cannot be condoned. In this context it is pertinent to refer to the case Ramlal Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361 and JCIT Vs. Tractors & Farm Equipments Ltd. (ITAT, Chennai- Bench B) 104 ITD 149-held that Party has to show reason for delay on the last day of limitation period and for each day thereafter. Hence, the assessee has to show reason for delay on the last day of limitation period and for each day thereafter.

As the assessee failed to show the reason for the delay on the last day of limitation period and for each day thereafter, respectfully following the decision in the case of Ramlal Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361 and JCIT Vs. Tractors & Farm Equipments Ltd. (ITAT, Chennai-Bench B) 104 ITD 149, the unexplained delay in filing the appeal is not condoned and hence the appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation.”

ITA Nos.3892 & 3893/MUM/2026 Mayfair Symphony Springs Co-Op Housing Society Ltd.

Tribunal. The Ld. AR of the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining reasons for

delay in filing appeal to the CIT(A). The same is reproduced below for ready

reference:

“1. THAT THE SOCIETY FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013- 14 ΟΝ 22.03.2014 AND FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 ON 28.10.2014 CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(d) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961.

ITA Nos.3892 & 3893/MUM/2026 Mayfair Symphony Springs Co-Op Housing Society Ltd.

5.1 The Ld. AR submitted that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the

appeal within the time period. The delay was neither willful nor deliberate and

was purely due to circumstances beyond control of the appellant. The Ld. AR has

relied on the decisions in cases of (i) Abhishek Wahee vs. ITO in ITA

No.1273/Mum/2025 dated 03.07.2025, (ii) M/s Torino Co-operative Housing

Society Ltd. vs. ITO in ITA No.1788/Mum/2026 dated 05.05.2026 and (iii)

Bakhtawar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs. ITO in ITA No.2965/Mum/2026

dated 25.05.2026.

ITA Nos.3892 & 3893/MUM/2026 Mayfair Symphony Springs Co-Op Housing Society Ltd. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. Sr. DR of the revenue has supported the order

of the CIT(A). He submitted that there was inordinate delay of more than 11 years

i.e. 4029 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The explanation of the

assessee is of general nature. The assessee has not given any explanation that

there was “sufficient cause” for not presenting the appeal within 30 days from

the date of service of impugned intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act. Hence, the CIT(A)

has rightly refused to condone the delay in filing of the appeal.

delay. We have also deliberated on the decisions relied upon by both sides. The

intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act was passed on 10.09.2014, but the appeal before

the CIT(A) was instituted on 22.01.2026. Hence, there was a delay of 4029 days in

filing appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld. AR referred to the affidavit filed by the

assessee and submitted that the delay was not intentional and was due to

circumstances beyond control of the assessee. The appellant has filed an affidavit

for condonation of the delay, which has been reproduced above. The reasons

given in the affidavit are that the intimation was electronically communicated to

its Tax Consultant, who did not inform about the intimation to the Managing

Committee. The members of the said committee are ordinary flat owners having

no knowledge about income-tax laws. The assessee came to know about the

impugned order only during the course of audit proceedings of FY 2025-26

relevant to AY 2026-27. Thereafter, necessary steps were taken to file the appeal, 6

ITA Nos.3892 & 3893/MUM/2026 Mayfair Symphony Springs Co-Op Housing Society Ltd. which was delayed by the aforesaid period. The delay was neither intentional nor

deliberate, but occurred due to circumstances beyond control of the society. The

Ld. AR has relied on the decisions of Tribunals cited above. We find that the CIT(A)

has given detailed reasons which are supported by the decisions of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in case of Ramlal vs. Rewa Coal Pits Ltd. (supra) and ITAT decision

in Tractors and Farm Equipments Ltd. (supra). The simple assertion that the delay

was due to lack of communication from the erstwhile CA, ignorance of law of the

committee members and that the assessee has a strong case on merit, etc., could

not be treated as a “sufficient cause” in terms of provisions of section 249(3) of

the Act for the inordinate delay of 4029 days. We find that the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in a number of decisions, namely, (i) P. K. Ramachandran vs State of Kerala

& Anr. (1997) 7 SCC 556, (ii) Pundik Jalam Patil vs. Executive Engineers, Jalgaon

Medium Project, (2008) 17 SCC 448 and (iii) Basawaraj and Anr vs. Special Land

Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81, (iv) Pathapati Subba Reddy (dies) By L. Rs. &

Ors. Vs The Special Deputy Collector (LA), SLP(C) No.31248 of 2018 (SC), dated

08.04.2024 held that condonation of delay should not be granted only on the

ground that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal

late.

the law on the subject issue by stating that where a case has been presented in

the Court beyond limitation of time, the applicant has to explain as to what was 7

ITA Nos.3892 & 3893/MUM/2026 Mayfair Symphony Springs Co-Op Housing Society Ltd. the “sufficient cause” which means an adequate and enough reason, which

prevented him to approach the Court within the limitation. In case a party is found

to be negligent, or for want of bonafide on his part in the facts and circumstances

of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there

cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay.

the case of Pathapati Subba Reddy (dies) & Ors. vs. The Special Deputy Collector

(LA), in SLP (Civil) No. 31248 of 2018 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to

and discussed various decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and held as under:

“7. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the legal maxim “interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium” i.e. it is for the general welfare that a period of limitation be put to litigation. The object is to put an end to every legal remedy and to have a fixed period of life for every litigation as it is futile to keep any litigation or dispute pending indefinitely. Even public policy requires that there should be an end to the litigation otherwise it would be a dichotomy if the litigation is made immortal vis-a-vis the litigating parties i.e. human beings, who are mortals.”

Ors. vs. A. Krishnaiah Since Deceased by LRS., in Civil Appeal No. 317 of 2025,

dated 08.01.2025, has set aside the order of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in

WP No.7220 of 2014 wherein the Hon’ble High Court allowed the Writ Petition by

condoning the delay. The Hon’ble Supreme Court at para 13 observed as under:

‘13. We are at our wits end to understand why the High Court overlooked all the aforesaid aspects. What was the good reason for the High Court to ignore all this? Time and again, the Supreme Court has reminded the District judiciary as well the High courts that the concepts such as “liberal approach”, “Justice oriented

ITA Nos.3892 & 3893/MUM/2026 Mayfair Symphony Springs Co-Op Housing Society Ltd. approach”, “substantial justice” should not be employed to frustrate or jettison the substantial law of limitation.’

Ltd. vs. PCIT, (2025) 178 taxmann.com 257 (SC) dismissed the SLP against the

order of High Court that where the assessee contented that the delay was due to

negligence of the counsel to file appeal. The Madhya Pradesh High Court had

dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The Hon’ble Court observed that it was

otherwise the duty of the assessee to watch its affairs and there was gross

negligence in the attitude to the assessee in filing appeal and the assessee has

not exercised any care to enquire about the status of second appeal and tried to

shift the responsibility towards his counsel. In view of the facts of the case

discussed above and respectfully following the authoritative precedents cited

supra, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A), who did not

condone the inordinate delay of 4029 days in filing appeal before the CIT(A) in

absence of any “sufficient cause”. The appeal of the assessee was rightly

dismissed by CIT(A), which we confirm. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal are

dismissed.

ITA No.3893/Mum/2026 (AY 2014-15)

condoned the delay of 3660 days in filing the appeal against the intimation issued

ITA Nos.3892 & 3893/MUM/2026 Mayfair Symphony Springs Co-Op Housing Society Ltd. u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 14.12.2015. The reasons and the precedents given by

the CIT(A) are similar to those in ITA No.3892/Mum/2026 (supra) decided above.

Hence, following the reasons given above in ITA No.3892/Mum/2026 (supra), this

appeal is also dismissed.

Order is pronounced on 18.08.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (BIJYANANDA PRUSETH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

*Aniket Chand; Sr. PS MUMBAI Date: 18.08.2026 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. Guard File

By Order

Assistant Registrar ITAT, MUMBAI