Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a co-operative housing society, claimed deduction for interest earned on deposits with banks. The appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) as time-barred due to a delay of over 12 years in filing, without deciding on merit.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals solely on the ground of limitation without properly considering the reasons for delay and without passing a reasoned order. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merit.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeals as time-barred without deciding on merit, and if the assessee provided sufficient cause for the delay.
Sections Cited
250, 80P(2)(d), 143(1), 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “K(SMC
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN
(Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri Bharat Gandhi, Ld. AR Department Represented by : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat (Sr. DR.) Date of conclusion of Hearing : 12.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 18.08.2025 O R D E R PER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (J.M.): 1. These appeals are filed by the appellant/assessee against the common but separate orders of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax to 4170/MUM/2025 The Borivali Ashwini Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. (Appeals)/Addl/JCIT (A)-3, Chennai [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] for the AY 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2015- 16 dated 25.04.2025, 28.04.2025 and 25.04.2025 respectively, wherein the appeals of the assessee are dismissed being barred by limitation on the ground that „No sufficient and satisfactory explanation was filed by the assessee to prove that there was a reasonable cause for delay, the said delay could not be condoned.‟
Since the facts of all the appeals filed by the assessee are exactly same, parties are same, also the orders are common and the matter involved is also similar wherein the assessee has challenged the disallowance of interest amount earned from deposits with the cooperative banks and was claimed as deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act for the different assessment years. Therefore, all the appeals are being disposed of by this common order, in order to avoid the multiplicity of the decision. First of all, we are taking AY 2012-13 as lead case.
The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a co operative housing society and had undergone redevelopment in September 2015 to 4170/MUM/2025 The Borivali Ashwini Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. where the members were asked to vacate the flat and building was demolished. The members got part possession of the new flats in February- March 2019 and final possession was received in December 2019. As a result of redevelopment, all the records of the society got scattered and it took a long period to retrieve old records. The appellant /assessee society is consisting of 53 members and the said society collects funds from its members for the maintenance and upkeep of the building by way of contribution to the sinking fund and general reserved fund and these funds are placed in bank fixed deposit with Cooperative and Nationalized Banks. Thus, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act of Rs. 3,13,871/- during the year under appeal which was received on account of interest from the fixed deposit with cooperative and nationalized banks. The assessee filed the return for Ay 2012-13 on 27.07.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 4,60,650/- after claiming deduction under Chapter VIA for Rs. 3,13,871/-. The intimation u/s 143(1) was passed on 06.05.2013 in which the deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act of Rs. 3,13,871/- was not allowed. to 4170/MUM/2025 The Borivali Ashwini Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd.
The assessee has preferred the appeal against the said intimation order dated 06.05.2013 before the Ld. CIT(A) after a delay of almost 12 years. As per the intimation order, the copy of order was served on 11.05.2013, hence the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals as time barred and has not decided the matter on merit. The appellant has filed an application for seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeals for AY 2012-13 as 4265 days delay, for AY 2013-14 as 3744 days delay and for AY 2015-16 as 3341 days delay.
We have heard Ld. AR and Ld. DR and examined the record. At the outset, Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee submitted that the application for seeking condonation of delay was filed alongwith affidavit giving details and the reasons for which the assessee could not file the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who was pleased to refuse the condonation of delay. and dismissed the appeal without deciding on merit. It is therefore argued that the case may be restored back to the Ld. CIT(A) and assessee be permitted to file the detail reasons by showing justified cause for condonation of delay before the Ld. CIT(A). to 4170/MUM/2025 The Borivali Ashwini Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd.
The Ld. DR on the other hand supported the judgment of the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee has failed to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay and the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. It is noticed that the submission of the Ld. AR for seeking condonation of delay almost 12 years was not considered by the Ld. CIT(A) in absence of no sufficient and satisfactory explanation filed by the assessee to prove that there was a reasonable cause for delay. On perusal of the impugned order, we have noticed that Ld. CIT(A) has primarily dismissed the appeal of the assessee by refusing the condonation of delay and has not formulated any points of determination for passing the reasoned order as is required by section 250(6) of the Act.
For the above reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the refusal of condonation of delay by the Ld. CIT(A) and dismissing the appeal without giving reason as required u/s 250(6) of the Act, has resulted into miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable in the eyes of law and accordingly, we restore the case of the to 4170/MUM/2025 The Borivali Ashwini Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. appellant to the file of Ld. CIT(A) who shall dispose the same on merit after giving effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee for filing the detail affidavit for seeking condonation of delay on justified and sufficient cause. The Ld. CIT(A) may consider the affidavit of the assessee as per the law and decided the matter afresh. The appellant/assessee shall present its case before the Ld. CIT(A) within 90 days of this order. Hence, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 2.
(A.Y: 2013-14) 3. (A.Y: 2015-16) 10. Since these appeals also raises the similar grounds of appeal as raised by the assessee in AY 2012-13, therefore the findings in as returned above shall mutatis mutandis apply to these appeals also. Hence, these appeals are also remitted to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh on merit.
In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.