AMRUT CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO, MUMBAI

The Ld. AR argued and contended that the assessee had earned interest from investment in cooperative bank. The details interest credited in impugned financial year is as follows:

The Ld. AR contended that the assessee is eligible for deduction u/sec. 80P(2)(d) related to the interest earned from the investment in cooperative bank. But the Ld. CIT(A) without considering the merit of the case only on point of limitation rejected the appeal of the assessee. The Ld. AR explained the delay for filing appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR filed a notarized affidavit which was sworn by Shri Anil Sondhi, the Secretary of the assessee society dated 08.07.2026. The relevant explanation of the said affidavit for seeking the condonation of delay before the Ld. CIT(A) are reproduced as below:

THE REASONS FOR THE SAID DELAY WAS THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF THE SOCIETY ARE ALL SENIOR CITIZENS AND HAVE HEALTH ISSUES. THESE MEMBERS ALSO DID NOT GET PROPER GUIDANCE AS TO WHAT COULD BE THE NEXT STEPS. ALL THESE REASONS WERE EXPLAINED IN THE FORM 35 ITSELF. 6. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) DISMISSED THE SAID APPEAL SOLELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPEAL WAS FILED LATE WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE MATTER. 7. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME, THE SOCIETY THEN FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE HON. ITAT, MUMBAI. HOWEVER, THE SAID APPEAL IS ALSO LATE BY APPROX 60 DAYS FOR THE REASONS EXPLAINED HEREIN UNDER: a) THE AFFAIRS OF THE SOCIETY ARE MANAGED BY ITS OFFICE BEARERS WHO ARE SENIOR CITIZENS AND NOT WELL-VERSED WITH THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE LAW. b) THE SOCIETY HAS A CONSULTANT NAMELY MR. VIJAY KULKARNI ALL THE MAILS FROM INCOME TAX ARE SENT ON HIS EMAIL ID WHICH IS KULKARNITANUANU@GMAIL.COM. c) THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) DATED 29/12/2025 WAS ALSO SENT ON HIS EMAIL ID ONLY. HOWEVER, IT SEEMS THAT THE CONSULTANT WAS TRAVELLING DURING THAT TIME AND HAD MISSED THIS EMAIL. THUS, DUE TO INADVERTENT OVERSIGHT, THE SAME WAS NOT COMMUNICATED TO THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF THE SOCIETY. d) DURING THE MARCH ENDING PERIOD THE SOCIETY AND THE CONSULTANT WERE REVIEWING THE WEBSITE FOR PREPARING THE ACCOUNTS, IT WAS ONLY THEN THEY REALIZED THAT THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). 8. THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WAS NEITHER INTENTIONAL NOR DELIBERATE NOR ATTRIBUTABLE TO ANY MALAFIDE CONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE SOCIETY. 9. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE PRAY TO YOUR HONOR TO KINDLY CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE FIRST APPEAL AND DIRECT THE CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE CASE ON MERITS/PASS AN ORDER DECIDING THE CASE ON ITS MERITS AS THE DELAY IS NEITHER WILFUL NOR DELIBERATE, BUT OCCURRED DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE SOCIETY.” 6. The Ld. DR argued and contended that the assessee had made a claim u/sec. 80P(2)(d) related to this interest which is contravening provisions of section 80P(4) of the Act. The Cooperative Bank cannot be considered as cooperative society. So, the addition confirmed by the Ld. AO is duly justified. But related to delay in filing appeal, the Ld. DR had not made any strong objection against the submission of the Ld. AR.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The undisputed position is that the assessee had filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 845 days against the order passed under section 154 of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of limitation without adjudicating the issue on merits. Before us, the assessee has placed on record a notarized affidavit sworn by Shri Anil Sondhi, Secretary of the assessee society, explaining the circumstances which resulted in the delay. It has, inter alia, been explained that the affairs of the society are managed by senior citizens who were not well-versed with the technical aspects of the proceedings and could not obtain proper guidance regarding the further course of action. The Ld. DR has not raised any serious objection to the prayer for condonation of delay. Considering the explanation furnished in the affidavit and the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the matter deserves to be considered on merits rather than being terminated merely on the ground of limitation. Accordingly, in the interest of substantial justice, we condone the delay of 845 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and set aside the impugned appellate order.

Since the Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the assessee's claim under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act on merits, we consider it appropriate to restore the entire issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits in accordance with law. The Ld. CIT(A) shall consider the submissions and supporting evidence of the assessee and pass a reasoned and speaking order after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We 5 clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, and all issues are kept open for consideration by the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee is also directed to remain diligent and extend necessary cooperation for expeditious disposal of the appellate proceedings.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No. 4547/Mum/2026 is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 17th day of August 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (OM PRAKASH KANT) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai,िदनांक/Dated: 17/08/2026 SAUMYA Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ�/The Appellant , 2. �ितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकरआयु� CIT 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., मुंबई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड�फाइल/Guard file.