Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM
Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J. M.:
This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘ld.CIT(A) for short), National Faceless Appeal
Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to
the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2018-19.
The brief facts are that the assessee is a registered co-operative housing society
whose account is required to be audited u/s. 81(1)(a) of Maharashtra Co-operative
Societies Act, 1960. The assessee submits that the due date of filing of the return for the
assessee’s society as per the provisions of section 139(1), Explanation 2(ii) is on
2 ITA No. 1914/Mum/2021 (A.Y. 2018-19) Lotus Plaza Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. vs. ITO
30.09.2018 and since the assessee had filed its return on 31.08.2018, the assessee’s claim
of deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) was denied by the Assessing Officer (A.O. for short).
Aggrieved by this, the assessee was in appeal before the ld. CIT(A).
It is observed that the assessee has filed the said appeal belatedly after a delay of
189 days. The ld. CIT(A) failed to condone the delay in filing the appeal on the ground
that there was no sufficient cause shown by the assessee as per the provisions of section
249(3) of the Act within the prescribed period of limitation u/s. 249(2) of the Act r.w.s. 5
of the limited Act. The ld. CIT(A) failed to admit the assessee’s appeal on this ground.
Aggrieved by this, the assessee is in appeal before us.
It is observed that the assessee has filed an affidavit specifying the reason for the
delay in filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. The assessee submit that it is a
co-operative housing society in which the managing committee members are honorary
members and working towards welfare of the society. The assessee further states that the
assessee society does not have a permanent accountant or a tax consultant and that the
email from CPC, pertaining to intimation order u/s. 143(1) was noticed by the assessee
society only after the prescribed time limit of filing the appeal. The ld. AR contended that
the assessee’s delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) was not purposely done.
The ld. AR prayed for condoning the delay and for setting aside the matter to the ld.
CIT(A) for de novo adjudication and stated that the assessee has got a good case on merit
and that the issue pertaining to deduction u/s.80P of the Act was covered in favour of the
assessee by various decisions.
3 ITA No. 1914/Mum/2021 (A.Y. 2018-19) Lotus Plaza Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. vs. ITO
The ld. Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short) vehemently opposed to the
submission of the assessee.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials on record. On the
basis of principles of natural justice, we deem it fit to provide the assessee with one more
opportunity to present its case before the ld. CIT(A). On this note, we direct the ld.
CIT(A) to condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee and to decide the issue
on merits, after giving opportunity to be heard. We hereby remand this issue to the file of
the ld. CIT(A).
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 30.11.2022
Sd/- Sd/-
(M. Balaganesh) (Kavitha Rajagopal) Accountant Member Judicial Member Mumbai; Dated : 30.11.2022 Roshani, Sr. PS
Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT - concerned 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File BY ORDER,
(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai