GOLD COIN APARTMENTS CO - OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD, MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(1)(1), MUMBAI

PDF
ITA 4645/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 October 2024AY 2020-21Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The assessee, a housing society, challenged an order where a deduction of Rs.3,79,248/- was disallowed under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a delay of 133 days in filing, as the delay was not considered to be for 'sufficient cause'.

Held

The Tribunal observed that the assessee was unaware of the intimation from CPC and that the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned liberally, considering judicial pronouncements. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits.

Key Issues

Whether the delay of 133 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned. Whether the disallowance of deduction under section 80P(2)(d) is justified.

Sections Cited

250, 143(1), 80P(2)(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri Vidyadhar Khandekar
For Respondent: Ms. Rajni Roy
Hearing: 30.10.2024Pronounced: 30.10.2024

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM

ITA No. 4645/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2020-21)

Gold Coin Apartments Co-operative ITO 22(1)(5) Housing Society Ltd. Mumbai Vs. Vakola Pipe Line, Nehru Road, Santacruz (E), Mumbai-400 055 PAN/GIR No. AAAAG 1535 H (Assessee) : (Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri Vidyadhar Khandekar Respondent by : Ms. Rajni Roy

Date of Hearing : 30.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 30.10.2024

O R D E R 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) passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'),

pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2020-21.

2.

The assessee has challenged the order of the ld. CIT(A) in not condoning the delay

of 133 days in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority, along with other

grounds of appeal.

3.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a housing society and had filed its

return of income for the year under consideration on 10.02.2021 and the same was

processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act, where the CPC/learned Assessing Officer (ld. A.O. for

2 ITA No. 4645/Mum/2024 (A.Y.2020-21) Gold Coin Apartments Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs. ITO short) had disallowed deduction of Rs.3,79,248/- u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act on the interest

income received by the assessee from its investments made with Co-operative Banks.

4.

Aggrieved the assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority,

challenging the assessment order.

5.

The ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 15.07.2024, dismissed the appeal filed by the

assessee for the reason that the assessee had filed the appeal before the first appellate

authority with a delay of 133 days for which the assessee has not explained the delay with

‘sufficient cause’.

6.

The assessee is in appeal before us, challenging the impugned order of the ld.

CIT(A).

7.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on

record. It is observed that the assessee has challenged the addition/disallowance made by

the CPC/ld. A.O. before the first appellate authority but the said appeal has been filed

belatedly after the period of limitation.

8.

The learned Authorised Representative ('ld. AR' for short) for the assessee

contended that the assessee had not received the intimation of the CPC in its mail and

was completely unaware of it. Further, the ld. AR stated that the intimation of CPC came

to the knowledge of the assessee society only when the tax consultant had logged in for

downloading 26AS while filing the tax return for A.Y. 2022-23. The ld. AR prayed that

the delay in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority be condoned for the

3 ITA No. 4645/Mum/2024 (A.Y.2020-21) Gold Coin Apartments Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs. ITO reason that the assessee has got a good case on the merits where the issues are covered by

the decision of the co-ordinate benches.

9.

The learned Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short), on the other hand,

controverted the same and stated that the assessee society must have received the

intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act on the same date when it was passed by the CPC/ld.

A.O. The ld. DR opposed to condoning the said delay as the reason stated by the assessee

was not a ‘sufficient cause’ to justify the delay.

10.

Having heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record,

it is observed that the CPC/ld. A.O. had passed the intimation order dated 26.11.2021 and

since the Hon'ble Apex Court had extended the limitation period to 90 days, vide

Miscellaneous Application No. 21/2022 in MA No.665/2021 in SMW(C) No. 3/2022

vide order dated 10.01.2022, the limitation for filing of the appeal was extended upto

01.06.2022. The assessee had filed its appeal on 12.10.2022 with a delay of 133 days for

which the ld. CIT(A) has failed to consider the reason specified by the assessee as not

constituting a ‘sufficient’ or ‘good cause’ for condoning the delay. As there are various

judicial pronouncements by the Hon'ble Apex Court and various High Courts where it

has been reiterated that the technical defects such as delay in filing has to be construed

liberally, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee may be given an opportunity

to adjudicate the issue before the ld. CIT(A). We, therefore, direct the ld. CIT(A) to

condone the delay in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority and to decide the

issue on the merits of the case and in accordance with law.

4 ITA No. 4645/Mum/2024 (A.Y.2020-21) Gold Coin Apartments Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs. ITO 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 30.10.2024

Sd/- Sd/- (Gagan Goyal) (Kavitha Rajagopal) Accountant Member Judicial Member Mumbai; Dated :30.10.2024 Roshani, Sr. PS

Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT- concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard File BY ORDER,

(Dy./Asstt.Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai

GOLD COIN APARTMENTS CO - OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD, MUMBAI vs ITO 22(1)(1), MUMBAI | BharatTax