HARBOUR HEIGHTS A COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 17(3)(1), MUMBAI

The Appellant submits that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- NFAC failed to give an opportunity to present their case before him and without adequate opportunity to the appellant to explain himself either in writing or by way of personal hearing/video conferencing passed his order on the very next day of the submission.

The Appellant submits that it is entitled to the deduction under section 80P(2)(d) and the same cannot be disallowed and income brought to tax.

The appellant also submits that the claim and deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) is a matter covered by various decisions of the Hon. ITAT.”

Before going into the merits of the case, it is observed that the appeal was filed before ITAT with a delay of 63 days. An application for condonation of delay was filed by the appellant society. The reason mentioned for filing the appeal with delay was that the Chartered Accountant missed out filing of appeal due to oversight. As the delay is not intentional and as they have a better case on merits, the Ld. AR of the appellant pleaded that the delay may be condoned and requested the Bench to consider their case based on the cases which were already decided. After hearing the matter on delay issue, the Bench decided to condone the delay and proceed the appeal on merits.

The only issue to be adjudicated in this case is whether the appellant is entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act on the interest income earned from the deposits made in Cooperative Banks. During the appeal proceedings, the Ld. AR of the appellant filed a paper book and relied on the following cases-law to demonstrate that the appellant society is entitled for deduction claimed :-

After hearing both sides, it is decided that the appellant society is entitled for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act on the interest income received from the Cooperative Banks as decided in the plethora of decisions of the Coordinate Benches of the ITAT mentioned in para 3 relied on by the Ld. AR of the appellant. Following the judicial discipline, the case is decided in favour of the appellant and it is held that the appellant society is eligible for the claim made by it under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act.