9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 1569X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ". 3. There is a delay of 33 days in filing the present appeals before the Tribunal for which petition and affidavit for condonation of delay is placed on record. We have considered the petition for condonation of the said delay. Upon perusal of the same and hearing both sides, we deem it fit to condone the delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the said delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay to take up the matter for adjudication. 4. Brief facts of the case as culled out from records are that assessee is a co-operative housing society formed in the year 1983 having 57 members. Assessee filed its return of income on 25.12.2021 reporting the total income at Nil, by claiming deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of Rs. 3,83,981/-, comprising of interest on fixed deposit of Rs. 3,48,086/- and on savings account of Rs. 35,895/-. Assessee earned this interest income from Mumbai District Central Co-operative Bank. This return was not e-verified by the assessee and a fresh return was filed on 31.03.2022. Return was processed by Central Processing Centre (CPC), Bengaluru, u/s. 143(1) of the Act denying the deduction claimed u/s. 80P(2)(d). An online rectification application was m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the parties. 3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. 6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so." 6.3. Similarly, we would like to make reference to authoritative pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N.Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy (supra). It reads as under: "Rule of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties. They ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aches on the part of the applicant the court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss." 6.4. We do not deem it necessary to re-cite or recapitulate the proposition laid down in other decisions. It is suffice, to say that the Hon'ble Courts are unanimous in their approach to propound that whenever the reasons assigned by an applicant for explaining the delay, then such reasons are to be construed with a justice-oriented approach. 6.5. In light of the above, if we examine the facts then it would reveal that there is a delay of 206 days in filing of the first appeal by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A). In its submissions as considered in the order of ld. CIT(A), assessee has explained the reasons which prevented him in filing the appeal withing the prescribed limitation. In this application dated 16.04.2024, assessee submitted that it was not aware about the demand raised as available on Income Tax portal and came to know about it only when the demand notice was received. Assessee had moved an application u/s. 154 against the said demand which was rejected by Centralised Processing Centre for which assessee was not aware. This fact submitted by the assessee was not co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore, the Assessing Officer was not justified in denying the said deduction to the assesse respondent. 11.The learned counsel has relied on the case of Totgars Co- operative Sale Society Ltd. v. IJK (2010) 322 ITR 283/188 Taxman 282 (SC). However, the said case dealt with the interpretation, and the deduction, which would be applicable under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the I.T. Act. For, in the present case the interpretation that is required is of Section SOP(2)(d) of the L.T. Act and not Section S * 0P(2)(a)(i) of the IT. Act. Therefore, the said judgment is inapplicable to the present case. Thus, neither of the two substantial questions of la canvassed by the learned counsel for the Revenue even arise it is the present case. 12. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the present appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed." 6.6. From the above, we understand that the provisions of section 80P(2)(d) of the Act are very clear and assessee is entitled for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act in respect of interest or dividends received from investments made with any other cooperative societies. The decision in the case of The Totagar Cooperative Sales S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing Society Ltd. vs. ITO [2024] 161 taxmann.com 518 (Mumbai - Trib.), this has been dealt with extensively. Relevant extracts are as under: "We further find that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. v. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society [2017] 78 taxmann.com 169/392 ITR 74 (Karnataka) and Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of State Bank of India v. CIT [2016] 72 taxmann.com 64/290 CTR 129/389 ITR 578/241 Taxman 163 (Gujarat), had also held that the interest income earned by the assessee on its investments held with a cooperative bank would be eligible for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Still further, we find that the CBDT Circular No. 14, dated 28.12.2006, as had been relied upon by the ld. A.R, also makes it clear beyond any scope of doubt, that the purpose behind enactment of sub-section (4) of Sec. 80P was to provide that the cooperative banks which are functioning at par with other banks would no more be entitled for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(4) of the Act. We are of the considered view that the reliance placed by the CIT(A) on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
