SURYA CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. WARD 28(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2890/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 July 2026AY 2014-20156 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, holding that the assessee had sufficient cause due to the pending rectification applications. It further held that the disallowance of Section 80P deduction by the CPC under Section 143(1) was beyond its permissible scope.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a cooperative housing society, claimed deduction under Section 80P for AY 2014-15 and 2015-16. The CPC disallowed this deduction while processing the return under Section 143(1). The assessee filed rectification applications which remained undisposed of, leading to a significant delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned, and whether the CPC's disallowance of Section 80P deduction under Section 143(1) was valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P,Section 143(1),Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI JAGADISH

For Appellant: Ms. Vidya Jayakumar
For Respondent: Shri Ankit Agarwal, SR. AR
Hearing: 15.07.2026Pronounced: 21.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 2890/Mum/2026 Assessment Year : 2014-15 & ITA No. 2891/Mum/2026 Assessment Year : 2015-16

Surya Cooperative Housing Vs. Ward 28(3)(1) Society Ltd.

IT-Office, 4th Floor, Tower-6, A-07, Surya CHS, Sector-3, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 Vashi Railway Station Complex, Navi Mumbai-400705 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAOFS6700R

Assessee by Ms. Vidya Jayakumar Department by Shri Ankit Agarwal, SR. AR

Date of Hearing 15.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 21.07.2026

ORDER Per: SHRI JAGADISH, A.M.:

1.

These two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders passed by the learned CIT(A)/Addl. JCIT(A), Panaji, under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), for A.Ys. 2014-15 and 2015-16. Since the issue involved in both the appeals is identical, they are disposed of by this consolidated order.

ITA Nos.2890 & 2891/M/2026 Surya Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.

2.

The effective grievance of the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeals against the intimations issued under section 143(1) and consequently dismissing the appeals in limine without adjudicating the claim of deduction under section 80P of the Act.

3.

Brief facts for A.Y. 2014-15 are that the assessee is a co-operative housing society. It filed its return declaring total income of ₹89,920, comprising interest income of ₹61,916 earned from deposits with co- operative banks and other interest income of ₹28,006. The assessee claimed deduction under sections 80P(2)(d) and 80P(2)(c). While processing the return under section 143(1), CPC did not allow the deduction and issued the intimation dated 30.06.2016 assessing the income at ₹89,920.

3.1 The assessee filed an application under section 154 on 23.09.2016, which was subsequently transferred from CPC to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The assessee followed up the application through letters dated 04.04.2017 and 12.02.2020. Since the rectification application remained undisposed of, the assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A) on 21.08.2025. The learned CIT(A) refused to condone the delay of 3,310 days and dismissed the appeal in limine. The facts for A.Y. 2015-16 are identical.

4.

The learned AR submitted that the assessee was under a bona fide belief that the rectification applications filed under section 154 would be disposed of by CPC or the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. Therefore, the delay was neither deliberate nor due to negligence. He relied upon the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in Vishva Villa Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. ITO in ITA Nos. 683 & 684/Mum/2024, order dated

ITA Nos.2890 & 2891/M/2026 Surya Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.

27.06.2024, and prayed that the delay be condoned and the Assessing Officer be directed to rectify the intimations.

5.

The learned DR supported the impugned orders and submitted that the pendency of the rectification applications did not constitute sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals.

6.

We have considered the rival submissions and gone through the material placed before us. The assessee filed its rectification application for A.Y. 2014-15 on 23.09.2016 and also followed up the matter with the Department. The application was transferred from CPC to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer and remained undisposed of. Thus, the assessee did not remain inactive but was pursuing an alternative statutory remedy under a bona fide belief that the mistake would be rectified.

6.1 We find that an identical issue was considered by the co-ordinate Bench in Vishva Villa Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (supra). Paragraphs 7 to 11 of the said order read as under:

“7. We heard both the parties and also peruse the relevant material based on record. First of all, the assessee has explained the reason for delay in filing of the first appeal before CIT(A) that earlier CA of the assessee had filed rectification application u/s 154 before the AO/CPC, then assessee was under bonafide belief that the adjustment would get rectified and even CA also did not advice the society to file an appeal when application was disposed of for certain period. It is later on when demand notice was issued then assessee was advised to file an appeal. Thus, looking to the fact that assessee is cooperative housing society and it was under a bonafide belief that it has filed a rectification which was not disposed of till date, therefore delay in filing of first appeal cannot be held to latches on part of the assessee. Thus, delay in filing appeal before the first appellate authority is condoned.

ITA Nos.2890 & 2891/M/2026 Surya Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.

8.

On merits in both the years, adjustment has been made by the CPC u/s. 143(1) treating the interest received from the Co-operative Bank as income from other sources by disallowing the claim of section 80P(2)(d).

9.

First of all, prior to assessment year 2021-22 there was no such provision for disallowing the claim of deduction within the scope of section 143(1)(a). Prima adjustment was permissible only with regard to claim of deduction u/s. 10AA, 80 IA, 80IAB, 80IB, 80IC, 80ID or section 80-IE. It was from the Finance act 2021 with effect from A.Y. 2021-22, disallowance of claim of deduction under chapter VIA can be made, if the return has been furnished beyond the due date of return of income filed u/s. 139(1). Here in this case the CPC has treated the due date of return of income as on 31/08/2012 for A.Y. 2012-13 and 05/08/2013 for A.Y. 2014-15, whereas the return has been filed by the assessee on 02/09/2012 and 20/09/2013 respectively.

10.

Admittedly, assessee is a Co-operative Housing Society registered under Maharashtra Society act 1960 and as per the said act of the Co-operative Housing Societies have to get their accounts audited ones there is requirement to furnish and audit before from Charted Accountant, and therefore the due date was 31/10/2012 and 31/10/2014 for the A.Y 2012- 23 and 2014 15 respectively and thus assessee had filed the return of income within the due date of under section 139(1). Thus, even under amended provision no prima facie adjustment have been made no prima facie adjustment on account of deduction u/s.80P could have been made. In the early provision of adjustment u/s. 143(1)(a) no such disallowance could have been made. Accordingly, we hold that disallowance made by the CPC u/s. 143(1)(a) on the claim of deduction u/s. 80P is beyond the scope of adjustment u/s. 143(1) accordingly the adjustment is deleted.

11.

In the result appeal for the A.Y 2012-13 & 2014-15 is allowed and appeal for A.Y.2013-14 is dismissed as withdrawn.”

6.2 The facts of the present appeals are identical. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we hold that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeals before the learned CIT(A). 4

ITA Nos.2890 & 2891/M/2026 Surya Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.

Accordingly, the delay is condoned. We further hold that the disallowance of deduction under section 80P while processing the returns for the years under consideration was beyond the permissible scope of section 143(1)(a).

6.3 Since the rectification applications have already been transferred to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, we set aside the impugned orders and direct the Assessing Officer to rectify the intimations issued under section 143(1) and allow the eligible deduction under sections 80P(2)(c) and 80P(2)(d) as per law, after verifying the quantum and nature of the respective income from the material available on record. The assessee shall be granted a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

7.

Our findings and directions for A.Y. 2014-15 shall apply mutatis mutandis to A.Y. 2015-16 also.

8.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 21/07/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (JAGADISH) Judicial Member Accountant Member

Mumbai, Dated: 21/07/2026 Ashwani Rao Sr. Private Secretary

ITA Nos.2890 & 2891/M/2026 Surya Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.

Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT (Appeals) 5. The DR, I.T.A.T. By order

(Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 80P

All 5,069 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →