Sonmrug Co-operative Housing Society Ltd vs. Revenue [TU-DT-03-ITAT-2026]
Background of the Case
The present case relates to Sonmrug Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs. CIT(A) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai, concerning Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2015-16. The Appellant, a registered co-operative housing society, had filed its return claiming deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. While processing the return under Section 143(1), the Central Processing Centre disallowed the deduction and made an addition of Rs.2,15,083. Aggrieved by the adjustment, the Appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). However, the appeal before the CIT(A) was filed with an extraordinary delay of 3615 days, far beyond the statutory limitation period. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of delay without examining the merits. Subsequently, the Appellant approached the ITAT challenging the dismissal order of the CIT(A).
Arguments by the Appellant (Assessee)
The Appellant contended that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the merits of the case. It was submitted that the society was eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) and that the adjustment made during processing under Section 143(1) was beyond the jurisdiction of the CPC. The Appellant further explained that the delay in filing the appeal occurred due to internal disputes between the former committee members and the existing management of the society, which created a hostile environment and lack of cooperation in accessing records. Because of these conflicts, the society claimed it could not file the appeal and supporting documents within the prescribed time. The Appellant therefore requested the Tribunal to condone the delay and restore the matter so that the case could be examined on merits.
Respondent’s Response (Revenue)
The Respondent opposed the Appellant submissions and supported the order passed by the CIT(A). It was argued that the delay of more than nine years in filing the appeal was extremely excessive and no convincing or legally sustainable reason had been provided for such delay. The Respondent contended that mere internal disputes among committee members of the society cannot be treated as a sufficient cause for condonation of delay under the law. It was further submitted that limitation provisions are mandatory and must be strictly followed. The Respondent therefore argued that the CIT(A) had rightly dismissed the appeal as time-barred and that there was no justification for the Tribunal to interfere with the order.
Court Findings and Decision
After considering the rival submissions and examining the record, the ITAT Mumbai observed that the appeal before the CIT(A) had been filed after a delay of 3615 days, which was extraordinarily long. The Tribunal noted that the explanation provided by the Appellant regarding disputes between committee members did not constitute a reasonable or sufficient cause to justify such an inordinate delay. Referring to settled legal principles governing limitation, the Tribunal emphasized that courts cannot extend statutory time limits on equitable or sympathetic grounds. The Tribunal reiterated the legal maxim “dura lex sed lex”, meaning that the law may be harsh but it must be applied as it stands.
In view of the absence of any convincing explanation for the delay, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal in limine. The same reasoning was also applied to the connected appeals for other assessment years, which were consequently dismissed as well.
To download official order, Click Here
“The site is for information purposes only and does not provide legal advice of any sort. Viewing this site, receipt of information contained on this site, or the transmission of information from or to this site does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. The information on this site is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice.”