AMIR INDUSTRIAL PREMISES CO-OP SOCIETY LTD,LOWER PAREL WEST, MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX APPELATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI, MAHARSHI KARVE ROAD

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण�ायपीठमुंबईम�। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM I.T.A. No.2502/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Amir Industrial Premises Co- Income Tax Officer, Mumbai Op Society Ltd 1 Amir Inds Estate, Sunmill Vs. Coumpound S L Jadav, Lower Parel West, Mumbai 400013 PAN:AAAAA1080B Assessee- अपीलाथ� / Appellant Revenue-��थ�/ Respondent :

: Shri Rajesh Kumar G. Shsh Assesseeby : Shri Paresh Deshpande – Sr. DR Revenueby : 04.05.2026 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement : 27.05.2026

O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, AM: This captioned appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, National – ADDL/JCIT (A)-7, Delhi [in short, “the Ld. CIT(A)”], dated 29.12.2025 for the assessment year 2015-16, challenging the intimation under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “the Act”] dated 01.01.2016, issued by Centralized Processing Center, Bangalore [in short, “the CPC”]. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, are as under:

ITA No. 2502/Mum/2026 Amir Industrial Premises Co-Op Society Ltd “The Learned CIT(A) erred in refusing to condone the delay of 3281 days without appreciating that: 1. The delay was occasioned due to fraud and concealment by the accountant.  FIR has been filed against the concerned accountant.  The society is managed by honorary office bearers.  There was no deliberate inaction or mala fide intention. 2. The CIT(A) adopted a hyper-technical approach. The 80P claim is substantial and already allowed in AY 2019-20.Refusal defeats justice. 3. CIT(A) rejected appeal mainly because delay was "3281 days". As per SC law, quantum of delay is irrelevant if explanation is bona fide. 4. Accountant misappropriated funds and concealed statutory orders. FIR filed proves bona fides. Society cannot be punished for accountant's fraud. 5. Society is registered cooperative society Managed by honorary members. No commercial litigant strategy is involved. 6. Interest earned from cooperative banks. Deposit certificates are produced. Deduction claimed in return. Disallowance under 143(1) without scrutiny is improper. 7. In AY 2019-20: Deduction is allowed to same Assessee having same nature of income. Therefore, denial in AY 2015-16 unjustified. 8. CIT (Appeal) did not verify FIR & did not take into consideration FIR. CIT Appeal did not give us reasonable opportunity of being heard. CIT(A) did not examine evidence & dismissed summarily. This violates principles laid down in Katiji and Balakrishnan. 9. The Learned CIT(A) erred in refusing condonation by adopting hyper-technical approach contrary to principles laid down in Katiji and Balakrishnan. 10. The Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the delay occurred due to fraud and concealment by accountant and not due to deliberate negligence. 11. The Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant society, managed by honorary members, acted bona fide. 12. The Learned CIT(A) failed to consider that denial of condonation would defeat a meritorious claim under Section 80P. 13. The disallowance of ₹7,39,294 u/s 80P under intimation u/s 143(1) is bad in law. 14. The adjustment is beyond scope of Section 143(1). 15. Deduction allowed in AY 2019-20-consistency principle violated. 16. The order is bad in law and deserves to be set aside. 17. Your Petitioner craves to add, alter or amend the grounds of Appeal.”

Additional Grounds of Appeal 1. The learned income tax officer has erred in disallowing deduction of Interest Income of Rs. 7,39,294/- which was claimed as deduction U/S 80P. 2. Your Appellant has produced Deposit Interest Certificate from Co-operative Banks for claiming deduction us 80P. (Interest Certificate is attached herewith) 3. Your Appellant prays to allow the deduction under Chapter VIA of Rs 7,39,294/- claimed under section 80P as per the Income Tax Return Filed for Assessment Year 2015-16

ITA No. 2502/Mum/2026 Amir Industrial Premises Co-Op Society Ltd 4. Your Appellant prays to cancel the demand as per the Intimation Order under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act 1061 5. Your Appellant prays that the similar case for Assessment Year 2019-20 disallowing interest u/s 80P of the Income Tax act is "ALLOWED" in appeal for the same assessee i.e Amir Industrial Premises Co-op Society Ltd. (Order in Appeal is attached herewith) 6. Your Appellant prays to add alter or amend grounds of appeal”

ITA No. 2502/Mum/2026 Amir Industrial Premises Co-Op Society Ltd pedantically, when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. 5. Ld. AR places his reliance on the order of first appellate authority i.e., Addl/JCIT -2 Chandigarh in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2019- 20, wherein a delay of 954 days was condoned following the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs M. Krishnamurthy, 2008 (228 LT 162), wherein the Hon’ble Court has held that it is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the Court, section 5 of the Limitation Act does not show that the discretion can be exercised only if the delay is without a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter; acceptability of explanation is the only criteria. Ld. AR also relied on the decision of Ram Lal vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. [AIR 1962 SC 361],wherein it is held that the words “sufficient cause” ought to receive a liberal consideration to advance substantial justice with no negligence or inaction or lack of bona fides imputable to the applicants. Moreover, in the case of Swarup Kumar Saha vs. Income Tax Officer ITA No.366/Kol/2018, the Hon’ble ITAT Kolkata condoned the delay in filing the appeal of CIT(A) by placing the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MST Katiji and Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)and Others, according to which the substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. It was the prayer that the assessee, since had received interest from co-operative banks, which is to be allowed as deduction u/s 80P of the Act, as held by various 4

ITA No. 2502/Mum/2026 Amir Industrial Premises Co-Op Society Ltd courts and the Tribunals under various orders, the claim of assessee u/s 80P shall be allowed, which otherwise was beyond the permissible adjustments under the scope of section 143(1). 6. Per contra, Ld. Senior DR vehemently supported the orders of Ld. CIT(A). 7. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and the judicial pronouncements relied upon. Under the identical facts and circumstances, ITAT Mumbai has decided the issue in ITA No.1788/Mum/2026 in the case of Torino Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vide order dated 05.05.2026, wherein the relevant findings of the Tribunal are as under: “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 interest of justice, we condone the delay in filing of appeal before ld. CIT(A) and direct to decide the issues in set aside afresh on merits.”

ITA No. 2502/Mum/2026 Amir Industrial Premises Co-Op Society Ltd honorary. The order was noticed by the office bearers only in the month of October 2022.Thereafter, the society has filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 9. Be that as it may, since in the present case, the occurrence of delay cannot be attributable towards the bona fides of the assessee society and also there was no allegation of any willful misconduct or default on the part of assessee. Therefore, going by the settled principle of law to look at the delay in filing of appeal with a liberal and justice-oriented approach, we condone the delay in filing of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to his files for fresh adjudication on merits. 10. 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. 11. In result, the appeal of assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 27-05-2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (BEENA PILLAI) (ARUN KHODPIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Mumbai, Dated : 27-05-2026. Ankit K., Sr. PS 6

ITA No. 2502/Mum/2026 Amir Industrial Premises Co-Op Society Ltd

Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 4. Guard File 5. CIT

BY ORDER,

(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai