SARNATH CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,BHULABHAI DESAI vs. CIT(APPEAL), PIRAMAL CHAMBER

ITA 2548/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 July 2025AY 2013-1421 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). The Tribunal noted the extensive internal disputes within the society from 2011 to 2022, which led to administrative delays and non-cooperation in record handover. The resignation of the society manager and the accountant, coupled with the withholding of records by previous office bearers, further contributed to the delay. Crucially, the Tribunal considered the Supreme Court's direction in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 to exclude the period from March 15, 2020, to February 28, 2022, for limitation purposes due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the delay to be bonafide and genuine, supported by an affidavit that the revenue did not contradict. Citing the Supreme Court's pronouncements in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST. Katiji & Ors., the Tribunal emphasized that refusing to condone delay can lead to a meritorious matter being thrown out. Therefore, the Tribunal condoned the delay, set aside the CIT(A)'s orders, and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. The issue of deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was noted as not being res integra, having been decided in favour of the assessee by coordinate benches. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sarnath Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., filed appeals before the ITAT against orders of the CIT(A) for Assessment Years (AY) 2013-14, 2015-16, and 2020-21. The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeals in limine, holding them to be barred by limitation. The assessee had filed appeals before the CIT(A) with significant delays: 3392 days for AY 2013-14, 2564 days for AY 2015-16, and 425 days for AY 2020-21. The CIT(A) refused to condone these delays, stating the assessee failed to show sufficient cause. The assessee's original return for AY 2013-14 declared a total income of Rs. 2,63,430, but the intimation under Section 143(1) computed total income at Rs. 9,60,668, disallowing Rs. 6,97,241 as 80P deduction.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) for AY 2013-14, 2015-16, and 2020-21 is to be condoned, considering the reasons provided by the assessee, and whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals solely on the ground of limitation, without deciding the merits, under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contentions: - The assessee argued that sufficient cause for the delay was shown to the CIT(A), which was not considered. An affidavit detailing reasons for the delay, including internal disputes, non-cooperation in record handover, administrative delays, resignation of the society manager, withholding of records by previous office bearers, manual accounting, resignation of the accountant, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, was filed. - The assessee contended that the CIT(A) ignored the merits of the case and that the rejection of the 80P deduction claim by the CPC under Section 143(1)(a) was beyond its jurisdiction. - The assessee relied on the Supreme Court's decisions in Union of India vs. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeeboy and Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST. Katiji & Ors. for a liberal approach to condoning delay. Revenue's Contentions: - The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the Revenue before the ITAT regarding the delay or the merits of the case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(1),Section 80P(2)(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(4)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “H(SMC

Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI. RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN

Heard together (3 matters)

ITA NO. 2548/MUM/2025
ITA NO. 2549/MUM/2025
ITA NO. 2550/MUM/2025

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

PER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (J.M.):

1.

These appeals are filed by the appellant/assessee against the separate orders dated 27.02.2025 of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl/JCIT (A)-4, Hyderabad [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 A.Y. 2013-14, 2015-16 and 2020-21 respectively, wherein the appeals of the assessee are dismissed being barred by limitation and the Ld. CIT(A) has refused to condone the del

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 80P(2)(d)

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →