IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH K (SMC), MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 898/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year 2012-13) ITA No. 899/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year 2014-15) ITA No. 900/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year 2015-16)

Shri Ganadhiraj Co-op Housing I.T.O., Ward 41 (2)(5), Mumbai Society Ltd. Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Mithagar Road, Mulund East, Bandra Kurla complex, Mumbai 400081 Bandra East, Mumbai. 400051 PAN No. AABAS0368R Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee represented by Shri Dharan Gandhi Department represented by Shri Kiran Unavekar SR. DR.

Date of hearing 17/03/2025 Date of pronouncement 28/03/2025 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1. These three appeals by same assessee are directed against the separate orders of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [ld CIT(A)] for Assessment Years (AY) 2012-13, 2014-15 and 2015-16. In all years, the certain facts are common, the assessee has raised common grounds of appeal in all three years, thus, on the appeals were clubbed together, heard and are decided by common order to avoid the conflicting decisions. For discussion of fact, appeal for AY 2012-13 is treated as lead case. The assessee in appeal for Assessment Year

2012-13 has raised following grounds of appeal.

1. “The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal and not considering the merits of the case.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Ld AO of disallowing the deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) vide intimation u/s 143(1).

3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld AO of not allowing the deduction u/s 80(P)(2)(d) without providing any reasons.

The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, supplement, alter and/or delete any of the above Grounds of Appeal.

2. Brief of the case are that assessee-Ganadhiraj Co-op Housing Society, filed its return of income Assessment Year 2012-13 on 06/12/2012 declaring income of Rs. 5,96,469. Return of income was processed by Central Processing Centre (CPC), Bangalore vide intimation dated 16/05/2013 by making certain adjustment. The CPC while making adjustment, not allowed the deduction claim under Section 80P 2(d). The assessee filed before CIT(A) on 11/10/2023. The assessee while filing appeal, in column No. 15 of form No. 35 contented that assessee came to know about intimation dated 16/05/2013 only on 30/07/2023 when demand for seven assessment years including of AY 2012-13, was served. As intimation under Section 143(1) was never communicated to assessee the assessee obtained copy of the order / intimation of CPC, which was provided to the assessee along with letter dated 03/07/2023, thus, there is delay of 75 days from the date of communication of demand. The assessee contented for condonation of delay in filing appeal. The Ld CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee as unadmitted by rejecting contention of assessee for condoning the delay. The Ld CIT(A) while rejecting the contention of delay noted that intimation under Section 143(1) is usually deliver by email to taxpayers on email ID within few days of passing of intimation. The assessee claimed that intimation dated 16/05/2013 was deliver to it after 10 years. Such statement is after thought on the part of assessee. It was further held that it is duty and responsibility of every taxpayer that after filing income tax return they should regularly track its process whether it has been treated as valid or not or process under Section 143(1) or not. The intimation is dated 16/05/2013 and the appeal is filed after the delay of 3760 days. There is long delay, it is without any reasonable cause and in no can be condoned. The appeal was dismissed limine being unadmitted. Further aggrieved the assessee as filed present appeal before Tribunal.

3. We have heard the submission of learned authorised representative (ld.AR) of the assessee and the learned Senior departmental (Sr DR)