IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER)

AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)

I.T.A. No. 3105/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 M/s. Dharavi Vs. Principal Sahakari Patpedhi Commissioner of Maryadit Income Tax, Mumbai

2/18, Gulmohhamad 20 Chawl, Sant Kakkaya Room No.418, 4^th Floor, Marg, Dharavi, Piramal Chamber, Mumbai-400017 Lalbaug, Parel, PAN:AAAAD6460C Mumbai-400012 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by Shri Sunil Desai Respondent by Shri Umashankar Prasad, CITD.R.

Date of Hearing 04.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 28.10.2025 ORDER Per: Smt. Beena Pillai, J.M.:

The Present appeal filed by the assessee arises out of order dated 18/03/2025 passed by Ld.PCIT Mumbai-20, for assessment year 2020-21 on following grounds of appeal:

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned PCIT erred in invoking provision of section 263 treating the order passed by the learned Assessing Officer as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned PCIT erred in cancelling and setting aside the assessment order and directing the AO to make necessary enquiry and verification in respect of deduction u/s 80P of Rs. 54,47,586, when on record the appellant has been consistently claiming deduction every year.

3. Appellant craves leave to add, alter and/or modify the grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing of the appeal.”

Brief facts of the case are as under:

2. The assessee file its return of income for the year under consideration on 29/12/2020 declaring total income at loss of Rs.1,47,96,198/-. The assessee claimed deduction of Rs.54,47,586/- under section 80P of the act. The return was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS to examine following issues:

•

high creditors/liabilities •

investments/advances/loans •

high interest expenditure/finance costs •

deduction from total income under chapter 6A

3. Subsequently,notice under section 143(2) of the act was issued along with notice under section 142(1) of the act. The assessee furnished various details from time to time and had filed its reply to the notice is issued wide letter dated 29/07/2021, 22/09/2021, 29/12/2021, 21/01/2021, and 25/02/2022 before the Ld.AR. Considering the submissions filed, the Ld.AO accepted the return of income filed by the assessee reassessment order on

02/09/2022 under section 143 (3) read with 144B of the act.

4. Subsequently, the Ld.PCIT upon perusing the assessment records observed that, during the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer allowed deduction of Rs. 54,47,586/- under sections 80P of the act, without carrying out any verification. The Ld.PCIT noted that, the assessing officer did not examine the claim of the assessee.

4.1 The Ld.PCIT thus issued notice under section 263 of the Act on 24/12/2024, that reads as under:

4.2 The Ld.PCIT during the revision proceedings, called for various documents and submissions furnished by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. It was noted that, the assessee furnished submission in respect of the issue under consideration,vide letter dated 22/09/2021 and 21/01/2022 placed at pages 9 and 18 of the paper book, wherein submission provided by the assessee reads as under:

“Deduction under chapter VIA, Rs.54,47,586: the assessee has claimed deduction under section 80P of the income tax act since it fulfils all conditions stipulated in section 80 P.”

4.3 The Ld.PCIT thus was of the opinion that, the Ld.AO did not verify the deduction claimed by the assessee even though this issue was one of the subject matter for verification in the scrutiny assessment notice, based on limited submission by the assessee Ld.AO did not verify any document or called for any further evidence is in support of the claim from the assessee and accepted the assessee’s submission.

4.4 The Ld.PCIT thus by placing reliance on various decision observed and held as under:

“6. Consid