BLUE RIDGE UNIT B TOWER 9 TO 14,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-2(4),PUNE, PUNE

3 BECAUSE such approach disregarded the orders of the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 03.03.2025 and the consequential order giving effect thereto dated 20.05.2025, which had already upheld the assessee's entitlement to Section 80P deduction for AY 2018-19, resulting in undue prejudice to the assessee and defeating the principle of adjudication on merits.

Disallowance of deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961:

1 BECAUSE the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in disallowing the deduction of without Rs.71,254/- being interest income earned from deposits placed with Co-operative Banks, appreciating that under Section 80P(2)(d) read with Explanation 4 to Section 80P(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, any income received by a co-operative society from another co-operative society is expressly exempt.

2 BECAUSE the Appellant, being a Co-operative Housing Society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, had are invested its statutory reserves in Co-operative Banks which recognized

3 BECAUSE the CIT(A) erred in disallowing the claimed deduction by misconstruing the provisions of the Act. The Appellant bank's income is indisputably from a co-operative bank and cannot be excluded from the benefit granted to co-operative housing societies under Section 80P.

Misinterpretation of Section 80P(4) excluding Co-operative Banks for denying deduction Society: to Housing

1 BECAUSE Section 80P(4) excludes co-operative banks themselves from claiming deduction under Section 80P However, this exclusion applies only to the banks directly and is not intended to cover income of other co-operative societies from deposits placed with such banks. The authorities below incorrectly applied this exclusion to the Appellant society, thereby depriving it of its rightful deduction.

2 BECAUSE this interpretation runs counter to the legislative purpose of Section 80P, which is to encourage inter-cooperative society business and income sharing. The exclusion clause protects banks from claiming exemption but does not deny income earned by housing societies from such banks.

Erroneous distinction between credit co-operative society and co- operative society:

1 BECAUSE the learned CIT(A) has failed to distinguish between credit co-operative society and co-operative society. The Appellant, being a housing society. primarily conducts maintenance and allied activities for members and deposits statutory reserves with cooperative banks, which is fundamentally different from the functioning of a credit co-operative society. Hence, the income is allowed as a deduction from taxation.

Material facts regarding fraudulent activities of former Treasurer:

1 BECAUSE the former treasurer's fraudulent activities resulted in financial loss and failure to respond timely to the Income Tax

2 BECAUSE the pendency of such proceedings, along with the complaint before the ICAI, demonstrates that the burden of non- cooperation was entirely beyond the Appellant's control, thereby justifying relief both on facts and in equity.

Violation of Principles of Natural Justice and non-consideration of critical evidence:

1 BECAUSE the CIT(A) failed to provide a fair hearing on merit basis instead dismissed the appeal without considering substantial legal and factual questions raised. warranting intervention by this Hon'ble Tribunal.

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is unjustified and bad in law:

1 BECAUSE there was no malafide intention, concealment of income, or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the Appellant. The claim for deduction was made in good faith, supported by judicial pronouncements and an honest interpretation of the law.

2 Penalty proceedings initiated are therefore baseless, proceed without justification, and offend principles of natural justice and fairness. The same deserves to be quashed.

CIT(A) has erred in law in not granting Condonation of Delay in filing the Appeal:

1 BECAUSE the delay in filing the Appeal occurred due to unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the Appellant, arising from fraudulent acts committed by the former treasurer which caused financial disruption, non-cooperation, and compelled the society to initiate civil and criminal proceedings, thereby affecting timely compliance with income tax proceedings.

2 BECAUSE the tax consultant engaged by the Appellant also failed in professional responsibilities, with a complaint pending before

We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, Assessee is a Co-operative Housing Society. Assessee filed its Return of Income for A.Y.2015-16 on 29.09.2015 declaring income at Rs.2,31,530/-. Assessee has claimed deduction u/s.80P of the Act. A notice u/s.148 was issued on 31.03.2021. Assessee filed Return of Income in response to notice u/s.148 on 29.04.2021 declaring total income at Rs.2,31,530/- and claiming deduction u/s.80P of Rs.1,21,254/-. Assessing Officer disallowed assessee’s claim of deduction of Rs.71,254/- which was interest received from Co-operative Bank. Aggrieved by the assessment order, Assessee filed an appeal before ld.CIT(A). There was a delay in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A). It was submitted before ld.CIT(A) that Assessee’s Tax Consultant was not available due to the ill health of his father. However, ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on account of delay stating that no evidence has been filed.

Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), Assessee has filed appeal before this Tribunal. It is noticed that there is a delay of filing appeal before this Tribunal. The Secretary of the Assessee

The above facts and accompanying documentary evidence such as police FIR, ICAI complaint, forensic audit reports, appointment letters which demonstrate that the delay was entirely beyond the control and was not due to any negligence or willful default by the Appellant

It is respectfully submitted that the Appellant has exercised utmost due diligence and has a genuine and substantial case on merits for the subject Appeal. It is admitted for adjudication rather than dismissed on technical grounds of delay.”

We have studied the Affidavit and accompanying documents. We are convinced that there was sufficient and reasonable cause for delay. Accordingly, the delay is condoned.

It was pleaded before us that ld.CIT(A) for A.Y.2018-19 on identical facts has allowed assessee’s appeal. Assessee has filed copy of the order passed by ld.CIT(A) for A.Y.2018-19 dated 03.03.2025. ITA Nos.2385, 2386 & 2387/PUN/2025 [A] – (03 Appeals)

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No.2385/PUN/2025 is allowed for statistical purpose.

Since we have set-aside the Lead Appeal in ITA No.2385/PUN/2025 to ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication, therefore, our order therein passed shall apply mutatis mutandis to both these appeals also. Accordingly, Grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee in both the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose.