CHARKOP KAAVYA BEACHWOOD CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1659/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 April 2026AY 2018-195 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal on technicalities without adjudicating the merits. The tribunal directed the CIT(A) to re-adjudicate the appeal after allowing the assessee to cure defects.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a housing society, failed to file its return of income. The AO treated maintenance charges collected as undisclosed income and made an addition. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on technical grounds of non-filing of grounds of appeal and return.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal on technical grounds without adjudicating the substantive issues on merits. Whether the assessee can claim deduction under Section 80P when the return of income was not filed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 142(1),Section 148,Section 250,Section 80P,Section 80AC,Section 119(2)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “H (SMC

Before: HON’BLE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANTHON’BLE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE

For Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, (SR. DR)
Hearing: 13.04.2026Pronounced: 20.04.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H (SMC)” BENCH MUMBAI

BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HON’BLE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1659/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Charkop Kaavya Vs. Income Tax Officer, Beachwood Cooperative Kautilya Bhavan BKC, Housing Society Limited Mumbai Maharashtra Plot no. 13 RSC 25 Survey 400051 no. 41 Charkop Village Kandivali West Mumbai, Maharashtra 400067 PAN/GIR No. AAAAC6208M (Applicant) (Respondent)

Assesseeby Ms. Navneet Arora, CA Revenue by Shri Pravin Salunkhe, (SR. DR) Date of Hearing 13.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement 20.04.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM: The instant appeal of the assessee filed against the order of NFAC, Delhi [for brevity the “Ld. CIT(A)”] order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 [for brevity ‘the Act’] for the Assessment Year 2018-19, date of order 11.12.2025. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Assessment Unit Income Tax Department (for

2 ITA No. 1659/Mum/2026 Charkop Kaavya Beachwood Cooperative Housing Society Limited

brevity the ‘Ld. AO’) order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act date of order 02.02.2024.

2.

The assessee is a society and had not filed its return of income under section 139 of the Act. A notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued, in response to which the assessee furnished its audited financial statements along with the computation of income. Subsequently, the Ld. AO issued a notice under section 148 of the Act for reopening the assessment but no return was filed in pursuing notice 148. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO observed that the assessee had credited an amount of Rs. 35,68,569/- towards maintenance charges collected from its members. Since the assessee had not filed its return of income, the Ld. AO treated the said receipts as undisclosed income and made an addition of Rs. 35,68,569/-. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground that the assessee had neither properly filed the grounds of appeal nor filed the return of income under section 139 of the Act. It was further held that the non-filing of return under section 139 vitiated the assessee’s claim of deduction under section 80P of the Act. Being aggrieved by the said order, the assessee has preferred the present appeal before us.

3 ITA No. 1659/Mum/2026 Charkop Kaavya Beachwood Cooperative Housing Society Limited

3.

The Ld. CIT(A) had made the observation in the impugned appellate order. The relevant observation is reproduced as below:-

“6. Decision

I have gone through the facts of the case. No grounds of appeal/statement of facts have been uploaded. The only point that could be at issue is whether deduction u/s 80P is admissible to the appellant. W.e.f. 01.04.2018, in a case where a return of income is filed beyond the time specified in section 139(1) of the Act, no deduction is allowable u/s 80P of the Act. In this case, the appellant did not file return of income either u/s 139(1) or in response to notice u/s 148. The appellant cannot argue that it is eligible for claim u/s 80P. If such a claim is allowed, it will defeat the purpose for which section 80AC was brought into the statute w.e.f. A.Y. 2018-19. I am of the considered opinion that the appellant may explore remedy u/s 119(2)(b) as there is no power to condone delay in filing return with this appellate authority. However, this is a reasonable presumption regarding grievance of the appellant that has been drawn from the facts of the case. Since no grounds of appeal has been uploaded, the question of deciding appeal does not arise. Despite specific communication pointing out defect in filing appeal, no effective compliance has been received. The appeal of the appellant is, therefore, dismissed and the assessment order is confirmed.

4.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is an undisputed fact that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee primarily on technical grounds, i.e., non-filing of grounds of

4 ITA No. 1659/Mum/2026 Charkop Kaavya Beachwood Cooperative Housing Society Limited

appeal and non-filing of return of income under section 139 of the Act. From the impugned appellate order, it is evident that the Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issue on merits and has proceeded to dismiss the appeal without passing a reasoned and speaking order on the substantive additions made by the Ld. AO. In our considered view, the approach adopted by the Ld. CIT(A) is not in consonance with the principles of natural justice. Even if there were procedural defects in the filing of appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have provided a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to cure such defects and thereafter adjudicated the issues on merits by passing a speaking order. Dismissal of the appeal in limine, without proper adjudication, defeats the very purpose of appellate proceedings. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we set aside the impugned appellate order and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the appeal afresh by passing a reasoned and speaking order on merits. The assessee is also directed to file the proper grounds of appeal and necessary details before the Ld. CIT(A). Needless to say, the Ld. CIT(A) shall afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and consider all the evidences and submissions in accordance with law. So, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

5 ITA No. 1659/Mum/2026 Charkop Kaavya Beachwood Cooperative Housing Society Limited

5.

In the net result, appeal filed by the assessee bearing no. ITA 1659/Mum/2026 stand allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 20.04.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (OM PRAKASH KANT) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 20/04/2026 Ankit, PS आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 1. ��थ� / The Respondent. 2. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / The CIT(A) 3. 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / Concerned CIT िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,मु�ई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, स�ािपत �ित //True Copy//

उप/सहायक पंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मु�ई / ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 139

All 3,629 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →