TORINO CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(1)(5), MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JM AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM ITA No.1788/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/s. Torino Co-operative Housing IncomeTaxOfficer 41(1)(5), Mum- Society Ltd. W-(401)(95) 4th Floor, Room No. 422, Kautilya South Avenue, Hiranandani Gardens, Vs. Powai, Mumbai – 400076. Bhavan, BKC, Bandra East, Mumbai – 400051. PAN/GIR No.AACAT9499B (Appellant) : (Respondent) : Shri Rajesh Shah Assessee by Respondent by : ShriSurendra Kumar Meena (Sr. DR) Date of Hearing : 16.04.2026 : 05.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, AM: The captioned appeal is filed by the assessee, directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), ADDL/JCIT (A)-2, Hyderabad [in short ‘Ld.CIT(A)’], passed dated 22.12.2025, for the Assessment Year (in short ‘A.Y.’) 2015-16, which in turn arises from the intimation order u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act'),, passed by Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax (CPC), Bengaluru, dated 14.12.2015. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are extracted as under: “1. Error in Refusing Condonation: The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not condoning the delay of 3068 days, failing to appreciate that the delay was caused by a bona fide reliance on professional advice and a lack of effective communication i.e. no portal demand.

ITA No. 1788/Mum/2026 (A.Y. 2015-16) M/s. Torino Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. 2. Failure to Adjudicate on Merits: The Ld. CIT(A) erred in summarily dismissing the appeal in limine without considering that the underlying issue has already been decided in the Appellant's favor for subsequent years. 3. Violation of Natural Justice: The Ld. CIT(A) failed to recognize that "sufficient cause" should be interpreted liberally to ensure substantial justice, especially where no mala fides (bad faith) or deliberate inaction is attributed to the society. 4. Liberal Interpretation of "Sufficient Cause": The Ld. CIT(A) failed to apply the doctrine of "substantial justice" over technicalities, ignoring established precedents like Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji, which mandate a liberal approach when delay is due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control. 5. Active Pursuit through Grievance: The Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that the Appellant was actively pursuing the matter via grievances and rectification applications, which rebuts the finding of "total inaction". 6. Crave Leave: The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal before or during the hearing” 3. Concisely stated, the assessee herein is a Co-operative Housing Society, has filed its return of income on 09.09.2015 for the assessment year 2015-16. The return of assessee was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act, wherein the returned figures of the assessee are not accepted by the CPC in toto, had denied assessee’s claim under chapter VIA, thereby,the assessed income of the assessee had been determined at Rs.15,92,920/-, as against declared income of Rs. 17,040/-. 4. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid addition, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the appeal of assessee has been dismissed in limine on account of delay in filing of appeal following the provisions of section 249(3) of the Act. To challenge the aforesaid order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. The sole issue or grievance of the assessee is denial of deductions claimed under Chapter VI-A of the Act for Rs.15,75,875/-. It is submitted by the Ld. AR that while the assessee is a Co-operative Society, entitled for deduction u/s 80P(2)(c) of the Act being a housing society. Since the claim of assessee under Chapter VI-A was not

ITA No. 1788/Mum/2026 (A.Y. 2015-16) M/s. Torino Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. accepted by the CPC, the assessee has filed a rectification application on 23.01.2026,further pursued and responded before the JAO i.e ITO 26(3)(5), Mumbai, on 05.03.3016, 18.03.2016, 01.12.2017 etc. assessee’s similar application AY 2014- 15 was also pending for disposal, which had been disposed vide intimation dated 13.03.2015 by rejecting the application of assessee, wherein the case of the assessee has been transferred to Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), Mumbai. The assessee, thereafter, made rectification applications starting from 18th March, 2016 to 29th November 2017. Therefore, the delay in filing of appeal before the Commissioner was occurred. 6. Before us, Ld. AR of the assessee furnished an affidavit stating various reasons for delay in filing of appeal before the First Appellate Authority constituting sufficient causes such as reliance on professional advice, consistency with other years, lack of portal visibility and active pursuit via grievance. It is submitted that the assessee has a legitimate claim which was not allowed to it, therefore, the delay of 3068 days is not on account of reasons beyond the control of assessee and constitutes sufficient cause so as to condone the same. 7. We have considered the submissions of assessee and reasons furnished before us. We find that the assessee is a Co-operative Hosing Society, which had tried its level best to get the rectification done through various communications with the department. In view of such facts and circumstance, while the bona fides of the assessee society cannot be disbelieved and in absence of any default on the part of the assessee. In the

ITA No. 1788/Mum/2026 (A.Y. 2015-16) M/s. Torino Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. interest of justice, we condone the delay in filing of appeal before ld. CIT(A) and direct to decide the issuesin set aside afresh on merits. 8. Needless to say, the assessee shall be provided with reasonable opportunities of being heard in the set aside proceedings. The assessee is also directed to co-operate and pro- actively assist in the set aside proceedings, failing which the appellate authority would be at liberty to decide the appeal in accordance with the mandate of law. 9. In result, the appeal of assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open court on 05.05.2026

Sd/-SSd/- S Sd/-d/- (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) (ARUN KHODPIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 05.05.2026 Ankit, SR. PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT- concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard File

//True Copy// BY ORDER,

(Dy./Asstt.Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai