https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768232 ITAT Mumbai allowed the appeal, setting aside CIT(A)'s dismissal order. The assessee successfully argued that intimation u/s 143(1) was never served, and they learned of the adverse order only when notice u/s 245 was served in July 2023, resulting in a 75-day delay in filing appeal. ITAT found no mala fide or intentional delay, noting CIT(A) failed to obtain jurisdictional AO's report on non-service. Regarding deduction u/s 80P(2)(d), ITAT found conflicting CPC orders at serial numbers 22 and 27, with deduction allowed at one entry but disallowed at another. Following coordinate bench precedents in Chheda Heights and Chanderlok Co-operative Society cases, ITAT held such adjustments were permissible under section 143(1) prior to AY 2021-22. en-us Fri, 28 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Apr 2025 07:50:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768232 ITAT Mumbai allowed the appeal, setting aside CIT(A)'s dismissal order. The assessee successfully argued that intimation u/s 143(1) was never served, and they learned of the adverse order only when notice u/s 245 was served in July 2023, resulting in a 75-day delay in filing appeal. ITAT found no mala fide or intentional delay, noting CIT(A) failed to obtain jurisdictional AO's report on non-service. Regarding deduction u/s 80P(2)(d), ITAT found conflicting CPC orders at serial numbers 22 and 27, with deduction allowed at one entry but disallowed at another. Following coordinate bench precedents in Chheda Heights and Chanderlok Co-operative Society cases, ITAT held such adjustments were permissible under section 143(1) prior to AY 2021-22. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 28 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768232