ADHYARU INDUSTRIAL PREMISES CO OP SOCIETY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 22(1)(6), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had been non-compliant throughout the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A). However, considering the grounds raised and the principles of natural justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to present its case.
What were the facts?
The assessee, an Industrial Co-operative Society, filed an appeal challenging an ex parte order from the CIT(A) for AY 2020-21. The appeal was filed with a delay of 14 days, which was condoned by the tribunal. The assessee had claimed a deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of Rs. 28,60,102, but the AO disallowed interest income of Rs. 27,25,102, determining the total income at Rs. 28,60,102.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, despite past non-compliance.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “K(SMC
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM
O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M:
This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the ex parte order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘ld.CIT(A) for short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2020-21.
During the appellate proceedings, it was observed that the appeal has been filed by the assessee with a delay of 14 days for which an Affidavit has been filed briefing the reason for the said delay. Upon perusal of the same, we deem it fit to condone the delay.
Delay condoned.
3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
(A.Y. 2020-21) Adhyaru Industrial Premises Co-op. Society Limited vs. ITO 1 The delay caused in replying back to Order was not due to any ignorance or casual approach towards the matter. It was totally unintentional and obviously due to unawareness about the issuance of the Order. Pray: The reason be considered out of Natural Justice and the unjust order be quashed. 2 It has been also noticed that, an unrequired hurry in passing the impugned order (within 69 working days) is evident and existent in this case. Pray: The reason be considered out of Natural Justice and the unjust order be quashed.
3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) at NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), erred in rejecting the deduction of Interest received by the Industrial Society, u/s. 8OP(2)(d) of the Income-tax, 1961 and adding the Interest amount to the taxable amount. Pray: The Appellant prays that deduction u/s 80P(2)ld) be allowed and the addition of Rs.27,25,102/- be deleted OR the Order be remanded back.
The brief facts are that the assessee is an Industrial Co-operative Society engaged in supply of water to various galas and to provide electricity to the common area of the society’s building for which the assessee collects monthly subscription from its members and other charges for maintaining the building of the society. The assessee had filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 15.02.2021, declaring total income of Rs.1,35,000/-, after claiming deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) to the tune of Rs.28,60,102/-.
The assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for verifying deduction from total income under Chapter VIA of the Act. The ld. Assessing Officer ('A.O.' for short) then passed the assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 30.08.2022, thereby determining the total income at Rs.28,60,102/-, after making an addition/disallowance on account of interest income received on deposits held in Co- operative Banks amounting to Rs.27,25,102/-
Aggrieved the assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority, challenging the assessment order. ld.A.O. for the reason that inspite of several opportunity the assessee has failed to substantiate its claim and has been non compliant throughout the appellate proceedings.
The assessee is in appeal before us, challenging the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A).
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is observed that the assessee has challenged the additions made by the ld. A.O. before the first appellate authority but has been non compliant throughout the appellate proceeding.
The learned Authorised Representative ('ld. AR' for short) for the assessee contended that the assessee has got a good case on the merits where the issue in the present appeal stands covered in favour of the assessee by various decisions of the co- ordinate benches and prayed that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to present its case before the ld. CIT(A).
The learned Departmental Representative ('ld.DR' for short) vehemently opposed to setting aside the issue to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for the reason that the assessee was given several opportunity by the ld. CIT(A) which was not availed by the assessee.
On the above factual matrix of the case, we are of the considered view that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to present its case before the first appellate authority by adhering to the principles of natural justice. We, therefore, remand all these issues back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee is directed say that sufficient opportunity of hearing is to be given to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
More judgments on Section 144B
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Mohammed Javed Bhati, Sikar vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, SikarITA 994/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2125/AHD/2026[2019-2020]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-2020
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2124/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Zakir Hussain Ali Khan vs. Additional Commissioner (Appeals), BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Manorama Nayak, Khorda vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar Iv Circle, KhurdaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Bijaya Kumar Parekh vs. State Tax Officer, CT And GST Balangir Circle, BalangirOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
