KANDIVALI DATTANI GRAM NO.3 CO-OP. HSG. SOC. LTD,KANDIVALI WEST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 42(1)(3), KAUTILYA BHAVAN, MUMBAI

PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M :

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned
ADDL/JCIT(A)-Thiruvanantpuram
[„Ld.CIT(A)‟], dated
19-11-2025, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15, wherein the assessee‟s appeal seeking claim of deduction u/s. 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟) has been dismissed by the Ld.CIT(A) on account of delayed filing of appeal.

2
2. During the course of hearing, the Ld.AR taken us through the factual matrix and the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal. It was submitted that the assessee is a Co-operative Housing Society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. For the impugned assessment year i.e., AY. 2014-15, it filed its return of income on 28-09-2015, claiming deduction u/s.
80P of the Act amounting to Rs.
2,91,419/-.
Subsequently, the assessee received intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act dt.
12-11-2015. As per the said intimation, though the CPC computed deduction u/s. 80P amounting to Rs. 2,91,419/- as claimed by the assessee in its return of income. However, while computing the taxable income and final tax liability, the deduction was not allowed to the assessee. It was submitted that the assessee thereafter filed a rectification application on 26-11-2015, which was disposed-off by order u/s. 154 of the Act, dt. 18-02-2016, wherein the deduction so claimed was again denied to the assessee. The assessee thereafter filed a rectification request on 29-06-2016 and requested to allow the claim of deduction u/s. 80P of the Act. On 03-07-2016, the rectification request was transferred to AST and the assessee again wrote a letter dt. 19-09-2016, thereafter on 01-02-
2019, the assessee received a notices showing a demand of Rs. 97,100/-.
The assessee again wrote letters on 01-03-2019 and 06-12-2022, requesting the AO to rectify and nullify the tax demand so raised.
However, those applications have till date not been disposed off. It was submitted that despite the assessee timely and repeated efforts to address disallowance and seek rectification, there has been lack of due consideration and response from the AO. It was submitted that failure to pass an order on the rectification application within the time frame as well as subsequent non-responsiveness to multiple submissions constitute breach of natural justice and before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee contended in view of the fact that the assessee was pursuing the matter with the AO,

3
there was delay in filing of the appeal and the Ld.CIT(A) was requested to condone the delay and its grievance be heard and rectification so sought be granted. It was submitted that the ld CIT(A) failed to appreciate the same and the delay was not condoned and there is no finding on merits of the case. It was submitted that there is a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and in the interest of substantial justice, the delay may be condoned. On merits, it was submitted that the assessee is eligible to claim deduction u/s. 80P of the Act on the revised income of Rs. 2,09,867/-, comprises of interest from Mumbai District Co- operative Society and other income which is eligible for deduction u/s. 80P of the Act. In this regard, our reference was drawn to letter dt. 19-09-2016
addressed to the AO, wherein the assessee has given details of the interest and other income received during the year. It was submitted that for the other assessment years, namely, AYs. 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 and 2022-23, the assessee has claimed similar deduction u/s. 80P of the Act and which has been duly granted to the assessee and, therefore, on the principle of consistency, the assessee‟s claim be allowed and where the Bench so decide, the matter may be set aside to the file of the AO for necessary verification.

4
technicalities of non-deliberate delay, then in that eventuality substantial justice is to be preferred. In our view the principles of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance. Hence considering the explanation put forth by the Assessee by justifiably and properly explaining the delay which occurred in filing the appeal and construing the expression "sufficient cause" liberally, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the ld CIT(A). Coming to the merits of the case, as per the records, it is evident that the assessee has filed its return of income on 28/09/2015 claiming the deduction u/s 80P and the CPC also initially computed deduction u/s. 80P of the Act, amounting to Rs.
2,91,419/- as claimed by the assessee in its return of income. However, while computing total income after deductions, the deduction was not allowed to the assessee and tax liability of Rs 84,426/- was determined.
No reasoning is evident from the records for denial of such claim and even from subsequent orders passed u/s 154, no reasoning has been provided for such denial of claim. The assessee has moved fresh rectification applications which as on date have not been disposed off and no reason has been put forward by the Revenue as to the reasons for keeping such rectification applications pending. On perusal of details filed by the assessee, we find that prima facie, the assessee is eligible for claim of deduction u/s 80P of the Act. It is also evident that for the other assessment years, namely, AYs. 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 and 2022-23, the assessee has claimed similar deduction and which has been granted to the assessee. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice, the Juri ictional AO should look into the matter expeditiously and the assessee be granted one more opportunity to represent its case before the Juri ictional AO. Consequently, we deem fit and proper to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the Juri ictional AO for necessary examination/verification and to 5
decide the same afresh as per law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. We also direct the assessee to fully co-operate with the Juri ictional AO for expeditious disposal of the matter and is at liberty to file necessary explanation/documentation as so advised.

Order pronounced in the open court on 17-03-2026 [MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL]
[VIKRAM SINGH YADAV]
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Mumbai,
Dated: 17-03-2026

TNMM

Copy to :

1)
The Appellant
2)
The Respondent
3)
The CIT concerned
4)
The D.R, ITAT, Mumbai
5)
Guard file

By Order

Dy./Asst.