BENZER TOWER CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 42(1)(3), KAUTILYA BHAVAN, MUMBAI

Both the appeals pertain to the same assessee and arising out from a common issue. For convenience both the appeals are taken together and heard together and disposed of by a common order. ITA 5885/Mum/2023, AY 2020- 21 is taken as lead case and decision rendered therein shall be applicable mutatis mutandis to the other appeal.

The assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Bench raising two substantive grounds. The first ground pertains to the addition arising from disallowance of deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act amounting to Rs.9,08,482/-, on the premise that, by virtue of insertion of section 80P(4), a co-operative bank is excluded from the ambit of section 80P. The second ground relates to the rejection of the appeal petition on ground of limitation for delay in filing appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) for 1539 days & 1211 days for AYs 2020-21 & 2021-22. The assessee earned interest from the investment in Saraswat Co-operative Bank Ltd which was duly claimed deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) was disallowed during processing of the return u/s 143(1) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who rejected the appeal on ground of limitation without considering the merit of the case. Being further aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before us.

The Ld.AR argued and filed paper book comprising pages 1 to 96 which has been placed on record. The Ld. AR contended that the issue is well settled related to deduction of interest earned from co-operative banks is a permissible deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The Ld.AR stated that the assessee claimed the deduction of interest which is only related the co-operative bank. So, the deduction is allowable u/sec 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The Ld. AR also explained delay for filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). he prays to restore the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).

The Ld. DR argued and opposed the submissions of the assessee. The Ld. DR contended that delay in filing appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) is inordinate delay & explanation for delay is so far not carrying any sufficient cause. Accordingly, the Ld. DR supported the orders passed by the revenue authorities.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessee is cooperative housing society who had filed the return of income under section 139 of the Act. Consequently, the return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act & the disallowance was made the interest earned from investment in Saraswat Co-operative Bank Ltd amount to Rs. 9,08,462/-. During processing of the return the Ld. AO rejected the claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act without allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity. The assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) with delay for 1539 days. The assessee sought to explain the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Bench, the assessee has explained the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal. However, we observe that no documentary evidence has been placed on record in support of the assessee’s claim. The Ld. CIT(A)

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No.5883 & 5885/Mum/2026 are allowed for statistical purposes.