USHA SUNDER PREMISES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT DIRECOTR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2711/MUM/2024Status: HeardITAT Mumbai25 July 2024AY 2021-225 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the order of the CPC under section 143(1) was erroneous. It noted that before making any adjustment, an intimation should be given to the assessee. Furthermore, the disallowance of deduction under section 80P(2)(d) was beyond the scope of adjustments permitted under section 143(1). Therefore, the Tribunal found the order of the CPC to be incorrect. On merits, the Tribunal observed that the assessee, being a cooperative housing society, is entitled to claim deduction under section 80P(2)(d) for interest on investments received from cooperative banks. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to allow the deduction under section 80P(2)(d). The appeals were allowed, and the AO was directed to grant the claim of deduction. The issue of condonation of delay was rendered infructuous by the decision on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s Splendor Complex Chs Ltd, a cooperative housing society, filed its return for AY 2020-21 declaring income of Rs. 3,240. The CPC issued an intimation under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, computing income at Rs. 1,34,480 by disallowing a deduction of Rs. 1,31,41,535 under section 80P(2)(d). The assessee appealed this order before the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. However, the appeal was dismissed on March 21, 2024, due to a delay of 685 days, which was not condoned by the Addl. CIT(A). The assessee filed two appeals (ITA No. 2711 & 2712/MUM/2024) before the ITAT against the orders of the Addl. CIT(A) for AY 2021-22 and AY 2020-21 respectively. The appeals were clubbed as the issues were identical.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Addl. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal on the ground of rejection of the petition for condonation of delay, without adjudicating on the merits of the case, despite the assessee claiming sufficient cause under section 249(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether the Addl. CIT(A) erroneously rejected the petition for condonation of delay by attributing it to negligence rather than to constraints faced by the assessee? 3. Whether the Addl. CIT(A) erred in disallowing condonation of delay by failing to interpret 'sufficient cause' liberally to advance substantial justice? 4. Whether the Addl. CIT(A) erred in disallowing condonation of delay by adopting a technical approach rather than a pragmatic, justice-oriented approach, as illustrated in Collector of Land Acquisition vs Mst. Kati Ji AIR 1987 SC 1353? Assessee's Contentions: The delay in filing the appeal was due to the society having no qualified staff, being managed by honorary senior citizen office bearers, and the challenges faced during and after the Covid period, including lack of knowledge and professional advice. These constituted a reasonable cause for the delay. Revenue's Contentions: Not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 80P(2)(d),Section 249(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “H (SMC

Before: SMT RENU JAUHRI & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Appellant: Shri Rajeshkumar Gandhi, CA
Hearing: 24.07.2024Pronounced: 25.07.2024

ORDER PER RENU JAUHRI, AM: “ These two appeals are filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the Add. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 1, Vadodara (in short “CIT(A)”) passed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). 2. Since issues involved in these two appeals are identical, hence they are clubbed, and a consolidated order is passed. For the sake of convenience, ITA No.

1.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A)-1, erroneously dismissed the appeal on the ground of rejection of petition for the condonation of delay, without going into the merits of the case, despite there being sufficient causes with the assessee for not filing the appeal in time as per section 249(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which obstructed its action to file the appeal within the time limit. ` 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A)-1, erroneously rejected the petition for condonation of delay, attributing it to negligence or inaction rather than to the constraints faced by the assessee preventing the timely filing of the appeal within the 30-day limit. 3 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A)-1, erroneously disallowed the condonation of delay, failing to recognize that the term "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay should be interpreted liberally to advance substantial justice. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A)-1, erroneously disallowed the condonation of delay, not appreciating that the term "sufficient cause" should be interpreted pragmatically in a justice-oriented approach rather than a technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every day's delay, as illustrated in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition vs Mst. Kati Ji AIR 1987 SC 1353. A pedantic approach should be avoided while dealing with an explanation of the delay, applying the doctrine in a rational and pragmatic manner. 5. The learned ADDL/JCIT(A)-1 erred in observing that the Appellant has not mentioned specific ground for delay in filing the appeal nor furnished anything to prove that it had acted diligently and was not guilty of negligence, though the circumstances for delay was explained in detail.

3 M/s Splendor Complex Chs Ltd , Mumbai 2. The brief facts are that the assessee is a cooperative housing society which filed its return declaring income of Rs. 3,240/- for the A.Y 2020-21 on 30.09.2020. The Centralized Processing Centre (in short “CPC”) issued intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act, computing the income at Rs. 1,34,480/- on account of disallowance of deduction of the Act of Rs. 1,31,41,535/-, u/s 80P(2)(d). Aggrieved with the order, the assessee filed an appeal before the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. However, vide order dated 21.03.2024 the assessee’s appeal was dismissed on account of delay of 685 days which was not condoned by the Ld. Addl.CIT(A).

3.

Before us, the Ld. AR contended that the delay was on account of the fact that the assessee had no qualified staff / employees and the society affairs are being managed by honorary officer bearers. The office bearers of the society are mostly senior citizens. During and after Covid period, they could not cope up with the requirement to file appeal within time due to lack of knowledge and lack of proper professional advice. As such there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal which should have been condoned by the Ld. Addl. CIT(A).

4.

We have considered the rival submissions. It is seen that the assessment has been finalized u/s 143(1) by making disallowance u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act, for which no opportunity appears to have been given to the assessee. It is clearly provided in the Section that before making any 4 ITA No. 2036/MUM/2024 M/s Splendor Complex Chs Ltd , Mumbai adjustment an intimation has to be given to the assessee. Moreover, disallowance of claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act is beyond the scope of adjustments allowed to be made u/s 143(1) of the Act. Accordingly, we hold that the order of the CPC u/s 143(1) was erroneous. Even otherwise, on merits, the assessee being cooperative housing society is entitled to claim deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act in respect of interest on investments, received from cooperative banks. Accordingly, we direct the AO to allow the deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. .A.Y 2021-22.

5.

As the facts and circumstances in this appeal are identical to ITA No 2712/Mum/2024, for the A.Y 2020-21 (except variance in figures), the decision rendered in above paragraphs would apply mutatis mutandis to this appeal also. Accordingly, we allow the appeal of the assessee and direct the AO to grant the claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act.

6.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 25.07.2024. /- S Sd/- Sd/- (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (RENU JAUHRI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 25/07/2024

More judgments on Section 80P(2)(d)

All 2,440 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P(2)(d) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →