JANSEVAK CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-27(1)(5), NAVI MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.9246/MUM/2025 (AY:2020-21) Jansevak Co-op Credit vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 27(1)(5), Society Ltd., Mumbai, K-8, Ganesh Kripa Chawl, 410, 4th Floor, Tower No.6, Vashi Barve Nagar, Bhatwadi, Railway Station Complex, Vashi, Navi Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai- Mumbai-400703. 400084. PAN/GIR No: AAAAJ4674N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Kumar Kale Revenue by Shri Vikas Chandra (SR. DR.) Date of Hearing 22.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement 22.05.2026 O R D E R PER BIJYANANDA PRUSETH, AM:

This appeal filed by the assessee emanates from the order passed under

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act’) by the National Faceless

Appeal Centre [in short, ‘CIT(A)’], dated 24.11.2025 for the assessment year

(AY) 2020-21.

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and also in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.94,46,030/- made by the Ld. AO being disallowance of deduction u/s. 80P claimed by the appellant. Your appellant, therefore, prays that deduction u/s. 80P of Rs.94,46,030/- be allowed to it.”

the AY 2020-21 on 08.01.2021 declaring total income at Rs. Nil after claiming

deduction of Rs.94,46,030/- u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The AO issued notice u/s 1 142(1), reminder letters and show cause notices on seven occasions, but no reply

was filed by the assessee. Hence, the AO invoked provisions of section 144 of the

Act and disallowed the deduction of Rs.94,46,030/- and passed order u/s 144

r.w.s. 144B of the Act determining total income at Rs.94,46,030/-.

The CIT(A) condoned the delay of 34 days in filing the appeal and considered the

submission of the assessee. In the submission, it was stated that the appellant

filed detailed reply stating that it was eligible to claim deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i)

of the Act in respect of interest and dividend earned on FDs, shares in MDCC Bank

aggregating to Rs.1,67,90,138/-. The AO also disallowed gross income instead of

restricting disallowance to net income. After examining the details, the CIT(A)

observed that the appellant has mentioned receipt of interest from banks without

specifying the names of the concerned banks. In absence of basic details, the

CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance made by the AO. He also rejected the

contention of the appellant that the AO disallowed gross income because the

disallowance was as per the claim of the assessee u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act.

Tribunal. The Ld. AR filed a paper book giving details of the assessment orders and

CIT(A) order for AYs 2011-12 to 2018-19. It has also submitted copies of the ITAT

orders in assessee’s own case for AYs 2013-14 to 2018-19, AY 2014-15 & 2015-16 and AY 2017-18. The Ld. AR submitted that all details are available with the

appellant and it may be given one more opportunity to plead its case on merit

before the AO who has passed an ex parte order.

authorities.

also deliberated on the decisions relied upon by the Ld. AR. The only dispute

raised by the assessee in the present appeal is against the denial of deduction u/s

80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act in respect of interest income received from banks. The

assessee has not given the details of the interest received from the bank including

the name of the bank and amount of interest. In absence of any detail, the AO

was left with no option other than completing the assessment u/s 144 of the Act

by disallowing the deduction under Chapter VI-A, which was one of the reasons

for selecting the case for scrutiny. Before CIT(A) also, the assessee did not file

complete details so as to decide whether the conditions of deduction u/s

80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act are satisfied. The ld. AR submitted that all the details are

available with the assessee and one more opportunity may be given to plead the

case on merit. In the interest of justice, we deem it proper to set aside the order

of CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of AO for fresh order after

granting adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The assessee is directed to be diligent and file all details and explanation before

the AO by not seeking adjournment without valid reason. The ground is allowed

for statistical purpose.

Order is pronounced on 22.05.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL) (BIJYANANDA PRUSETH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

*Aniket Chand; Sr. PS MUMBAI Date: 22.05.2026 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. Guard File

By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, MUMBAI