CCI CHAMBERS CO-OP HSG SOC. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 17(2)(1), MUMBAI

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

These two appeals by the assessee are directed against two separate orders, both dated 09.10.2023, passed by the Ld.
Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal
Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment years 2013-
14 and 2015-16 respectively. As both appeals being connected with the single assessee, way of this consolida
2. The grounds ra year 2013-14 are rep
On the facts
Ground No condonatio
1. The lear
(without adj ground that 2. The learn has filed an days and w delay, altho
(i.e. within 3
2016), which the learned the CIT(A)-28
was no dela authority.
3. The learn basis of an institution of huge addit
Appellant an Without preju
Ground No.
1. The learn
51,20,000/- repairs and CCI Chambers
ITA No. 35

same were heard together and ated order for the sake of conven aised by the assessee in appeal produced as under:
and circumstances of the case and in o. 1: Appeal dismissed on ac n of delay rned CIT(A) erred in dismissing th judicating on the merits of the cas the appeal is barred by limitation.
ned CIT(A) erred in alleging that the appeal on 16th June, 2016, with a d without making an application for cond ugh the appeal was filed on 21st A 30 days from date of service i.e. 22
h was duly acknowledged by way of CIT(A) on Form No. 35 (which was su
8 along with other documents and h ay in filing the appeal before the first ed CIT(A) erred in dismissing the app incorrect information pertaining to th f appeal, which has resulted in con tion and unnecessary harassmen nd huge litigation costs to the Appellan udice, on the merits of the case
2: Addition of Rs. 51,20,000/- ned AO erred in making an additi being voluntary contribution to the amenity fund by member.
s Co-op. HSG. SOC. Ltd.
2
542 & 3543/MUM/2025
disposed off by nience.
for assessment n law:
ccount of he appeal e), on the e Assessee delay of 67
donation of April, 2016
2nd March, f stamp by ubmitted to ence there t appellate peal on the he date of nfirming a nt to the nt.
ion of Rs.
e building

ned AO erred in not following the pr where the Hon'ble Income Tax
Appellant's own case for A.Y. 08-09 a this issue in favour of the Appellant.
ned AO erred in not following the pr which has been duly accepted al High Court in the case of :- p. Hag. Soc. Ltd. 317 ITR 47 (Bom HC) urt Premises Co-op. Soc. Ltd. (Bom HC uently erred in assessing the sum a Sources'.
the rival submissions advanced sed the material available o aised in Ground No. 1 of the ap assessee’s appeal by the Ld.
7 days in filing the same, and th uch delay in the absence of an arned counsel for the assessee act, no delay in the filing of the ssessment order dated 10/03/2
on 22.03.2016, and the appe fore the juri ictional CIT(A) n the prescribed period of limita mitted the appeal of the assesse ssessee acknowledged the dela s Co-op. HSG. SOC. Ltd.
3
542 & 3543/MUM/2025
rinciples of Appellate and 09-10
rinciples of by the C) 320 ITR as 'Income d by the parties on record. The ppeal pertains to . CIT(A) on the he consequential n application for e had submitted e appeal. It was 2016 was served eal was filed in on 21.04.2016, ation of 30 days.
ee for the reason ay nor filed any application for condo however is reproduce
“7. In the pr explained by before the CI was filed on 7.1 It is not a delay in filing
Accordingly, i assessee has of the conside that there consequently condoned.
7.2 Thus, the of the appella exercise of d filling Form N appeals befor exists no rea appeal. So, th case. Conside
3.1 It is further no impugned order, ob
16.06.2016 before th tax(Appeals) and was Centre (NFAC). The L date of the assessm the assessee has plac bearing the date 21
CIT(A), in support of filed within the presc
CCI Chambers
ITA No. 35

onation of delay. The finding o ed as under:
resent case the delay in filing the app y the appellant. The due date of filin
IT(A) was 21.04.2016. However, no su n that day.
case of an ordinary delay of a few days g this appeal could be sue moto condon in the facts and circumstances of the cas s NOT given any explanation for cause of ered view that the assessee has failed t exists a sufficient cause for the d the delay of 67 days in filing the appea delay is nothing but negligence and inac ant which could have been very well avo due care and attention. Lackadaisical a No. 35 and casual and non-challant wa re appellate authorities cannot be encoura ason for condoning the delay in filing t here is no reason for condoning such a d ering above the delay is not condoned.”
oticed that the Ld. CIT(A), in bserved that the appeal was he ld. juri ictional Commissio s later migrated to the National
Ld. CIT(A) counted the period of ent order passed upto 16.06.2
ced reliance on a stamped copy
.04.2016 from the office of th f the contention that the appeal cribed time.
s Co-op. HSG. SOC. Ltd.
4
542 & 3543/MUM/2025
f the Ld. CIT(A) peal is not ng appeal uch appeal s so that the ned by me.
se when the delay, I am to establish delay and al cannot be tion on part ided by the approach in ay of filing aged. There the present delay in this para 1 of the s instituted on oner of income-
Faceless Appeal f delay from the 2016. However, y of Form No. 35
he juri ictional l had been duly

red view, the question whether od of limitation is essentially a cation. Before us, the assessee der wherein seal of the assessee n submitted. The assessee c ated 10/03/2016 was received o said page of assessment order is he date of the filing of the appea rmat, before us the assessee ha s Co-op. HSG. SOC. Ltd.
5
542 & 3543/MUM/2025
the appeal was question of fact has filed a copy e’s society along contended that on 22/03/2016. s reproduced as al before the Ld.
as filed a copy of the Form No. 35, whe
Commissioner of Inc
In view of both these verification by the Ld
3.4 We also note th the assessee seeking of delay, nor has th actual date of filing a 3.5 In light of the a appropriate to restor for the purpose of v assessment order on Officer, and (ii) the da juri ictional CIT(A) condonation of delay
3.6 It has also been the assessee that the before the office of CIT(A) has recorded
NFAC. This fact of p been explained by accordingly, the vera
Ld. CIT(A).
CCI Chambers
ITA No. 35

erein there is a stamp from the ome-tax (Appeals) bearing date e photocopies of documents file d. CIT(A).
hat the Ld. CIT(A) has not issue an explanation on the question he record been examined for a and service of the assessment or above and in the interest of jus re the matter back to the file o verifying (i) the actual date of the assessee from the records o ate of receipt of Form No. 35 by . Thereafter, he shall decide if so required.
n submitted before us by the e appeal filed in physical format the ld juri ictional CIT(A), w that the said appeal has been endency of appeal filed in phys y the assessee through an acity of this claim shall also be s Co-op. HSG. SOC. Ltd.
6
542 & 3543/MUM/2025
office of the Ld.
as 21.04.2016. d, matter needs ed any notice to n of condonation ascertaining the rder.
tice, we deem it of the Ld. CIT(A) f service of the of the Assessing the office of the e the issue of Ld. Counsel for t is still pending whereas the Ld.
migrated to the sical format has affidavit, and e verified by the 3.7 Upon such verific been filed within th proceed to decide th treating the appeal fil valid. However, in th belatedly, the assess appropriate applicat supporting affidavit.
issue of condonation dispose of the appeal
No. 1 raised in the purposes.
4. As regards Gro addition, the same do the matter has bee
Ground No. 2 is dism
5. Now, we take u year 2015-16. The g as under:
“On the facts
Ground No. 1
(i) The learne
AO/CPC mad the Assesse
Intimation Ord
CCI Chambers
ITA No. 35

cation, if it is found that the ap he period of limitation, the L he appeal on merits in accord led either in physical format or he event the appeal is found to see shall be granted an opport tion for condonation of delay
The Ld. CIT(A) shall thereafter of delay in accordance with law l on merits if the delay is condon appeal is accordingly allowed ound No. 2, which concerns th oes not require adjudication at en remanded to the Ld. CIT(A missed as infructuous.
up the appeal of the assessee grounds raised by the assessee and circumstances of case and in law:
1: Rectification Order u/s. 154
ed CIT(A) failed to take into considerat de a mistake by denying deduction u/s.
is eligible to claim), which is appa rder u/s. 143(1), which resulted in an ad s Co-op. HSG. SOC. Ltd.
7
542 & 3543/MUM/2025
peal had indeed
Ld. CIT(A) shall dance with law, electronically as have been filed tunity to file an y along with a r adjudicate the w and proceed to ned. The ground d for statistical he merits of the this stage since
A). Accordingly, for assessment are reproduced tion that the . 80P (which arent in the ddition of Rs.

15,46,810/-, rectification ap
(ii) The learn
Intimation u/
denied the d justification a 154, to the A record.
(iii) The learne of deduction
15,46,811/- e bank, on the g
(iv) The Learn deduction wa disallowance computationa debatable.
(v) Without pr appeal agains that the allow issue and fai not have pas
80P(2)(d) and action of AO/
Without prej
Ground No. 3
(i) The learne merits of the c
80P, with res from appellan
(ii) The learn provisions of any income b operative soci society, the w
Without prej
Ground No. 4
CCI Chambers
ITA No. 35

which is beyond the scope of section 14
application filed by the Assessee is valid a ed CIT(A) failed to take into considerat
/s. 143(1) passed by the CPC/AO, ha deduction u/s. 80P, without providing and therefore the right to apply for a recti
AO is legal and valid, as it is a mistake ed CIT(A) and AO/CPC erred in confirmin u/s. 80P, with respect to Interest in earned from appellant's investment with ground that the issue is debatable issue.
ned CIT(A) failed to take into considera as claimed correctly in the return an by the CPC has happened due to al, or processing error and therefore the m rejudice the learned CIT(A) in his Order st the rectification proceedings, has hims wability of deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) is led to take into consideration that the AO ssed an adverse order, rejecting the de d therefore the application u/s. 154 for r
CPC is valid and legal.
judice
3: Denial of Deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) d CIT(A) erred in non adjudicating the ap case where there has been a denial of de spect to Interest income of Rs. 15,46,8
nt's investment with co-operative bank ned CIT(A) failed to take into consid section 80P(d) which reads as under:- "
by way of interest or dividends derived iety from its investments with any other whole of such income."
judice
4: Denial of Deduction u/s. 80P(2)(c) s Co-op. HSG. SOC. Ltd.
8
542 & 3543/MUM/2025
43(1) and the and legal, tion that the as arbitrarily g and valid ification u/s.
apparent on ng the denial come of Rs.
co-operative tion that the nd that the o a clerical, mistake is not rejecting the self admitted a debatable
O/CPC could eduction u/s.
rectifying the appeal on the eduction u/s.
811/- earned deration the "in respect of d by the co- r co-operative

(i) The learne claim u/s. 80
Return of Inco arbitrary den mistake app adjudicated u
5.1 The brief facts o of income on 24.09.2
processed under Sec deduction under Cha allowed. The assesse under Section 154 o
(AO), contending tha entitled to deduction interest income earn which had not been g
5.2 However, the application, holding
Section 80P was und not constitute a ‘mis extract of the findin under:
“3. The asses the issue u/s debatable iss that the asse concerned rai
Rs.15,46,811
CCI Chambers
ITA No. 35

ed CIT(A) failed to take into considerat
0P(2) (c) of Rs. 50,000, made by the Ass ome, is in accordance with the provisions nial of the same in the Intimation u/s.
parent on record, and therefore ou upon of the case are that the assessee
2015, declaring Nil total income.
ction 143(1) of the Act, where apter VIA amounting to ₹15,46
ee subsequently filed a rectifica of the Act before the learned A at it, being a co-operative housi under Section 80P(2)(d) of the A ned on deposits made with co-o granted while processing the ret learned Assessing Officer rej that the issue relating to th der litigation and debatable, an stake apparent from the record ngs of the learned Assessing O ssee contention of the assessee is not a s. 80P of the I.T. Act, 1961 is letigative a sue. Further, there is no evidence on rec essee is eligible for the deduction u/s 80
ised by the assessee of disallowance of /- u/s 80P of the Act is not the mista s Co-op. HSG. SOC. Ltd.
9
542 & 3543/MUM/2025
tion that the sessee in the s of law and 143(1) is a ught to be e filed its return
The return was ein the claim of 6,811/– was not ation application
Assessing Officer ing society, was Act in respect of operative banks, turn.
ected the said he claim under nd therefore, did d’. The relevant
Officer reads as acceptable as as well as an cord to prove
0P. Moreover, deduction of ake apparent from records.
rectification u
5.3 Aggrieved by th before the Ld. CIT(A Assessing Officer, ob
Section 154 is limit record and does n interpretation. The L
Hon’ble Supreme Cou
82 ITR 50 (SC)] and C
(SC)], and held that discernible in the in relevant finding of th
“11. The jur assessment he could ma record. In th
Hon'ble the Bros. [1971]
the case of (SC). The ord section 143( that no appe infirmity in appeal fails
5.4 We have heard and perused the mat our consideration is under Section 80P(2
CCI Chambers
ITA No. 35

Hence, the request of the assessee to ma u/s. 154 of the I.T. Act, 1961 is hereby rej he rejection, the assessee prefe
A). The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the serving that the rectification jur ted to correcting mistakes app not extend to issues requir
Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the bind urt in T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volka
CIT v. Keshri Metal Pvt. Ltd. [(199
t no mistake apparent from ntimation under Section 143(1) e Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as un ri iction of an Assessing Officer to order under section 154 of the Act is ke correction of errors apparent on the hat regard I place reliance on the j
Supreme Court in T.S. Balaram's ITO
] 82 ITR 50. Similar view has been r
CIT v. Keshri Metal (P.) Ltd. [1999] 2
der of intimation dated 03.03.2016 pa
(1) of the Act, has attained finality as eal was filed against that order. I fi the impugned order u/s 154. The and the same is dismissed.”
the rival submissions advanced terial on record. The controversy whether the rejection of the cla
)(d) of the Act in the intimatio s Co-op. HSG. SOC. Ltd.
10
542 & 3543/MUM/2025
ake requisite ejected.”
erred an appeal decision of the ri iction under parent from the ring debate or ing decisions of art Bros. [(1971)
99) 237 ITR 165
the record was of the Act. The nder:
o rectify an s limited as e face of the judgment of O v. Volkart reiterated in 237 ITR 165
assed under s it appears ind no legal erefore, the d by the parties y that arises for aim of deduction on issued under Section 143(1) amoun to be rectifiable und intimation under Sec on 24.09.2015, wher order is recorded as income may be one o
Act, but the impug grounds for disallow
80P(2)(d).
5.5 Upon careful pe
Assessing Officer, we record cogent or ad application for rectifi which sub clause of made by the Central
(ii) or sub-clause (v) presumed it to be un for rectification. The accordingly. The ord or reasoning as to ho be litigative or debat
Income Tax (Appeals the action of the CCI Chambers
ITA No. 35

nts to a mistake apparent from der Section 154 of the Act. On ction 143(1), it appears that the reas the due date as per the sy s 07.09.2015. The belated filin of the reason for adjustment u gned intimation does not clea wance of the claim of deduction erusal of the rectification order e find that the Assessing Offic dequate reasons for rejecting ication. It is not evident from r f section 143(1)(a ) the adjust
Processing centre(CPC), wheth of section 143(1)(a) of the Act nder sub-clause (ii) and accord e ld AO also proceeded to de der does not disclose any analy ow the claim of the assessee wa table in nature. The learned C s), in the appellate order, has Assessing Officer without u s Co-op. HSG. SOC. Ltd.
11
542 & 3543/MUM/2025
the record so as n examining the return was filed ystem-generated ng of return of /s 143(1) of the arly specify the n under Section r passed by the cer has failed to the assessee’s record as under tment has been her it sub-clause
. The Assessee dingly requested ecide the issue ytical discussion as considered to Commissioner of merely affirmed undertaking an independent examin regarding the nature
5.6 Having regard t considered view that of the Assessing Offic authorities are set as Assessing Officer wit order, after affording
The Assessing Officer the claim of the asse shall also clearly indi of the Act under whic under sub-clause (ii)
6. The grounds of ap statistical purposes.
7. In the result, bo statistical purposes.
Order pronou (RAHUL CHA
JUDICIAL M
Mumbai;
Dated: 30/07/2025
Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.

CCI Chambers
ITA No. 35

nation or addressing the fund of the assessee’s claim.
to the aforesaid circumstances the matter requires reconsidera cer. Accordingly, the orders pass side, and the matter is restored th a direction to pass a reasone g due opportunity of hearing t r shall specifically address the essee is considered litigative or icate the precise sub-clause of S ch the adjustment has been mad or sub-clause (v).
peal of the assessee are accordi oth the appeals of the assessee unced in the open Court on 30
/-
AUDHARY)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA s Co-op. HSG. SOC. Ltd.
12
542 & 3543/MUM/2025
damental issue s, we are of the ation at the level sed by the lower to the file of the ed and speaking to the assessee.
issue as to how r debatable, and Section 143(1)(a) de, whether it is ingly allowed for e are allowed for 0/07/2025. KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER

Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.

////

CCI Chambers
ITA No. 35

ded to :

BY ORDER

(Assistant Re

ITAT, Mu s Co-op. HSG. SOC. Ltd.
13
542 & 3543/MUM/2025
R, gistrar) umbai