THE GUJARAT HOUSING UMARWADA URBAN CO. OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), SURAT

ITA 45/SRT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 October 2026AY 2014-1510 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 751 days in filing both appeals. The Tribunal found that the circumstances narrated by the President of the assessee-society in the affidavit constituted a "sufficient cause" as per Section 253(5) of the Act. It also referred to Supreme Court judgments in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others and Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, emphasizing a justice-oriented approach where substantial justice is opposed to technical considerations. The Tribunal held that the merits of the case should not be scuttled merely on the basis of limitation. Regarding the grounds of appeal, the Tribunal respectfully followed the decision of a co-ordinate bench rendered in the assessee's own case (ITA No. 1050/SRT/2024). This co-ordinate bench had held that interest and dividend earned from co-operative banks are eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, even after considering the decision in PCIT vs. Totagars Co-operative Sale Society (supra). The co-ordinate bench also noted that the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Surat Vankar Sahkari Sangh (supra) has binding precedent. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act in both assessment years under consideration. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.

What were the facts?

These are two appeals filed by the assessee, The Gujarat Housing Umarwada Urban Co. Op. Credit Society Ltd., against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. ITA No. 45/SRT/2026 pertains to Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15, challenging an assessment order dated 27.09.2019 passed by the ACIT, Circle-1(2), Surat, under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. ITA No. 46/SRT/2026 relates to AY 2017-18, challenging an assessment order dated 20.11.2019 passed by the AO under section 143(3). Both appeals were filed with a delay of 751 days. The assessee sought condonation of this delay, citing a "sufficient cause" as explained in an affidavit by the society's President. The revenue argued against condonation due to the inordinate delay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal should condone the delay of 751 days in filing the appeals, considering the "sufficient cause" presented by the assessee and the principles of substantial justice, as per Section 253(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and Supreme Court judgments. Assessee's Contention: The delay was due to "sufficient cause" and not intentional or malafide. The cases are meritorious, and the delay should be condoned to allow examination of substantial justice. The assessee relied on the affidavit of its President and Supreme Court decisions in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others and Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh. Revenue's Contention: The assessee participated in first appellate proceedings but made an inordinate delay in filing appeals to the ITAT, and therefore, the delay should not be condoned. 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 22,20,971/- for AY 2014-15 and Rs. 94,35,439/- for AY 2017-18, specifically concerning the denial of deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act in respect of interest and dividend earned from co-operative banks. Assessee's Contention: Interest and dividend earned from co-operative banks are eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The lower authorities erred by denying this deduction based on PCIT Vs. Totagars Co-operative Sale Society (Kar.). The issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by a co-ordinate bench of the ITAT, Surat, in assessee's own case for AY 2020-21 (ITA No. 1050/SRT/2024), which considered the Totagars case and other precedents. The assessee requested to follow the co-ordinate bench's order. Revenue's Contention: The revenue relied upon the orders of the lower authorities, contending that the additions/disallowances made by the AO must be upheld.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 253(5),Section 143(3),Section 263,Section 80P(2)(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT

For Appellant: Shri Unmesh Dalal, CA
For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash Jha, Sr. DR
Hearing: 22.07.2026Pronounced: 07.10.2026

Per B.M. Biyani, AM: The captioned two (2) appeals are filed by assessee, the details are as under:

(i) ITA 45/SRT/2026 is directed against the order of first-appeal dated 17.10.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), ITA Nos. 45 & 46/Srt/2026, A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2017-18

NFAC, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”], which in turn arises out of assessment- order dated 27.09.2019 passed by learned ACIT, Circle-1(2), Surat u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →