NARIMAN BHAVAN PREMISES CO- OP SOCIETY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. WARD 25(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2658/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 July 2026AY 2018-20197 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the repeated filing of returns in response to deficiency notices complicated the issues. The Tribunal set aside the appellate order and restored all issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a Co-operative Society, filed multiple revised returns due to errors in reporting gross total income and claiming deductions under Section 80P. The CPC processed the last return under Section 143(1), leading to a significant tax demand.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of Section 80P deduction was justified due to errors in revised returns and whether Section 80AC was attracted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P,Section 143(1),Section 139(9),Section 119(2)(b),Section 80AC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

For Appellant: Shri Asif Karmali & Shri Jayesh Dhabaria,ARs
For Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhri,(Sr. DR)
Hearing: 21.05.2026Pronounced: 09.07.2026

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2658/MUM/2026 (A.Y. 2018-19) Nariman Bhavan Premises v/s. Income Tax Officer, Ward – Co-op Society Limited बनाम 25(3)(1), Kautilya Bhavan, 227, Nariman Bhavan, Backbay BKC, Bandra East, Mumbai Reclamation, Nariman Point, – 400 051, Maharashtra Mumbai – 400 021, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ PAN/GIR No: AAAJN0320J Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

Assessee by : Shri Asif Karmali & Shri Jayesh Dhabaria,ARs Revenue by : Shri Swapnil Choudhri,(Sr. DR)

Date of Hearing 21.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement 09.07.2026 आदेश / O R D E R PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :-

The instant appeal emanating from the appellate order dated 29.01.2026 is preferred by the assessee against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax, Appeal, ADDL./JCIT(A), Kochi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] pertaining to Intimation order

P a g e | 2 ITA No. 2658/Mum/2026 A.Y. 2018-19 Nariman Bhavan Premises Co-op Society Limited passed u/s. 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] dated 07.02.2020 for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2018-19.

2.

The grounds of appeal are as under: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.Addl. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of the claim u/s. 80P in the Intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act dated 07.02.2020 issued by Assessing Officer (CPC) (AO) ignoring the fact that the original ITR was filed on 30.10.18 within due date, ignoring the fact that the intimation itself mentions the date of filing of the original ROI as 30/10/2018. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.Addl. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in holding that the provisions of sec 80AC are attracted in the assesses case thereby denying the assesses claim for deduction u/s 80P holding that an application for condonation of delay should be filed before the CCIT/DGIT having jurisdiction of the case. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.Addl. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in rejecting the appeal of the assessee seeking the allowability of the claim of deduction u/s 80P holding that reduction of the Total Income and Tax Payable as determined by the CPC, is not allowable, at the appellate stage. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.Addl. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in ignoring the genuine and inadvertent mistakes on account of human error in filing of the ROI of which the assessee was unaware of till the time of receipt of the intimation from the CPC. 3. The assessee a Co-operative Society, had filed its original return of income for the year on 30.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs. NIL for the relevant year on the basis of gross total income of Rs. 1,24,59,387/- and subsequent claim for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act to the extent of the gross income. The CPC issued deficiency notice

P a g e | 3 ITA No. 2658/Mum/2026 A.Y. 2018-19 Nariman Bhavan Premises Co-op Society Limited u/s 139(9) of the Act dated 12.01.2019 and 30.01.2019 against which the assessee filed another ITR for the second time on 01.02.2019 declaring the same total income similar to original ITR. Further, another notice u/s. 139(9) of the Act was issued on 10.04.2019 and 23.05.2019. In response to the said notices, the assessee filed the another return for third time on 05.06.2019, declaring total income at Rs. NIL but reported gross receipts being Rs. 5,15,71,725/- after set off, instead of surplus as per Income & Expenditure A/c., being Rs, 1,26,21,669/-.

4.

The assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A) submitting that the third return was filed after claiming deduction of Rs. 5,15,71,725 u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act, being the GTI, by mistake through an inadvertent human error in stating the figures in the computer system while filing the said return. The correct figures of gross total income and deduction u/s. 80P2(d) of the Act were Rs. 1,24,59,387/- respectively as per original return filed within due date. It was further submitted that the allowable deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act of was Rs. 2,61,59,365/-, being interest received on Fixed Deposits maintained with the Cooperative Bank which was restricted and claimed only to the extent of available GTI of Rs. 1,24,59,387/-. It received intimation u/s 143(1) of

P a g e | 4 ITA No. 2658/Mum/2026 A.Y. 2018-19 Nariman Bhavan Premises Co-op Society Limited the Act, wherein disallowance had been made for the claim of deduction Rs. 5,15,71,725/- under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act by stating “Error description” “deduction in respect of certain income, in SI. No. 2.I deduction is claimed under section 80P however return is not filed within due date.” It was submitted that the date of filing original i.e. on 30.10.18 had been duly mentioned in the said intimation which in turn was based on CBDT had Vide F. No. 225/358/2018/ITA-II, dt. 24.09.2018: 407 ITR (St.) 41, extending the due date to 15.10.2018 and Vide F. No. 225/358/2018/ITA-II, dt. 08.10.2018: 408 ITR (St.) 30, the „due date‟ was further extended to 31.10.2018.

4.1 On being made aware of the alleged high demand and mistakes in filing the ITR (3rd time), the assessee filed revision application u/s. 264 of the Act, before Pr. CIT -17, Mumbai along with a separate application for condonation of delay which was later withdrawn and the appeal was filed before the ld.CIT(A). It was submitted that similar claim of deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act, was being allowed by the appellate authority in the past.

5.

The ld.CIT(A) after taking into account all the relevant facts, was requested the assessee to seek condonation of delay before the

P a g e | 5 ITA No. 2658/Mum/2026 A.Y. 2018-19 Nariman Bhavan Premises Co-op Society Limited CCIT/DGIT having jurisdiction over the case through an appropriate application u/s.119(2)(b) for the AY 2018-19 and dismissed the appeal.

6.

Before us, the ld.AR has reiterated the same contentions as made before the ld.CIT(A).On careful consideration of the above facts, we find that the assessee filed as many as three returns in response to defective notices issued u/s 139(9) of the Act and in the course of which it committed further mistakes in the third return filed in disclosing the correct amount of gross total income as also the deduction claimed u/s 80P(d)(2) of the Act. Consequently, the last return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act at exorbitant amount leading to raising substantial demand of tax and interest etc. From the facts stated by the ld.AR, the final fate of original return as also the second return of income qua notices issued u/s 139(9) of the Act are not forthcoming as to whether the deficiency was removed or not, since the deficiency appears to be related to non maintenance of books of account and audit thereof. Repeated filing of return in response to notice u/s 139(9) of the Act rather than removing the deficiency pointed out has made the issues more complicated than solving them.

P a g e | 6 ITA No. 2658/Mum/2026 A.Y. 2018-19 Nariman Bhavan Premises Co-op Society Limited 7. In such a situation, we are of the considered opinion that the entire matter requires due consideration by the lower authorities w.r.t. records at their end. Accordingly, we set aside the appellate order and restore all issues to the file of JAO who would examine the contentions of the assessee and pass necessary order in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Needless to state, he would allow adequate opportunity of haring to the assessee who, in turn, would cooperate in the de novo proceedings. The grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.

8.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 09/07/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (AMIT SHUKLA) (PRABHASH SHANKAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Place: म ुंबई/Mumbai दिनाुंक /Date 09.07.2026 Lubhna Shaikh / Steno

P a g e | 7 ITA No. 2658/Mum/2026 A.Y. 2018-19 Nariman Bhavan Premises Co-op Society Limited आदेश की प्रतितलतप अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आय क्त / CIT 4. दिभागीय प्रदिदनदि, आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. सत्यादपि प्रदि //True Copy// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अतधकरण/ ITAT, Bench, 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 →