ASHOKA COMPLEX CO OP HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 22(2)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2937/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 July 2025AY 2009-10Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)3 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) to decide the application for condonation of delay afresh. The Ld.CIT(A) is directed to consider the detailed affidavit filed by the assessee and hear both parties.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals for AY 2009-10 and 2010-11 were rejected by the Ld.CIT(A) for being filed beyond the limitation period, and the delay was not condoned. The assessee contended that they were not granted a proper opportunity to present their case for condonation of delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the Ld.CIT(A) erred in rejecting the appeal for non-condonation of delay without granting sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Whether the grounds regarding denial of deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) and TDS credit should be considered.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P(2)(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Arvind Wadke
For Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, SR DR
Hearing: 24/06/2025Pronounced: 24/07/2025

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No.2937/Mum/2025
ITA No.2938/Mum/2025

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is arising out of the independent orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax, Appeal ADDL/JCIT (A)-3, Ahmedabad [hereafter, Ld.CIT(A)], dated 13/03/2025 for the assessment year 2009-10 and dated 13/03/2015 for A.Y. 2010-11. Since both the appeals carry similar facts and circumstances and identical issue, both the appeals are being disposed of by this consolidated order and is taken as lead case.

2.

At the outset, we notice that appeal of the assesse was rejected by Ld.CIT(A) as the same were not found to be filed within the limitation and consequently, the delay was not condoned. Now before us, the assessee has filed a detailed affidavit 2 ITA 2937 & 2938/Mum/2025 Ashoka Complex Co-op Housing Society Limited duly sworn in by Mr. Mohan Khatavkar, Secretary of assesse society and submitted that assesse could not file affidavit or details mentioned in the affidavit before the Ld.CIT(A) as proper and sufficient opportunity was not granted by Ld.CIT(A) before rejecting the application of condonation of delay. Whereas, on the contrary, the Ld.DR contested the said plea raised by the assessee and submitted that sufficient opportunity was granted to the assessee and thereafter a conscious decision was taken by the Ld.CIT(A) regarding dismissal of appeal filed by the assessee as there was no sufficient cause for condoning the delay.

3.

Be that as it may, without going into the allegations and counter allegations raised by the respective parties, the Bench is of the view that since the grounds raised in the present appeal are with regard to denial of deduction claimed under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act and also non granting of TDS credit, the matter is restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) to consider the detailed affidavit filed by Mr. Mohan Khatavkar, Secretary of assesse society and thereafter, keeping in view the contents of the said affidavit and the details contained therein, to decide the application for condonation of delay afresh, after hearing both the parties. The assessee shall remain co-operative and shall not seek adjournment on frivolous grounds.

4.

Before parting with, I make it clear that my decision to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) shall in no way to construe as any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute which shall be adjudicated by Ld.CIT(A) independently in accordance with law.

5.

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

More judgments on Section 80P(2)(d)

All 2,440 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P(2)(d) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →