NEYYOOR P A C C S LTD,KANYAKUMARI vs. ITO,WARD 3, NAGERCOIL
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the department should have waited for the decision of the CBDT on the condonation petition filed by the assessee for the delay in filing the return. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to await the CBDT's decision.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, but filed the return of income after the due date. The CPC disallowed the deduction and the CIT(A) confirmed this disallowance.
What were the issues?
Whether the deduction under Section 80P can be disallowed solely on the ground of delayed filing of return without waiting for the outcome of a condonation petition filed before the CBDT.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal
O R D E R
PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi both dated 21.03.2022 relevant to the assessment year 2018-19.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed the return of income for the assessment year 2018-19 on 22.01.2019 admitting Nil income after claiming deduction under section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] of ₹.22,36,570/-. The ADIT CPC, Bengaluru, while processing the return of income disallowed the claim of the assessee under section 80P of the Act and passed intimation under section 143(1) of the Act dated 31.05.2019.
The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Since the assessee has not filed the return of income within the due date of filing as specified under section 139(1) of the Act and accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment and dismissed the ground raised by the assessee.
On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. By filing copy of the application under section 119(2) of the Act, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee has filed a condonation petition before the CBDT under section 119(2) of the Act to condone the delay in filing the return of income. It was further submission that despite having time to process the return of income under section 143(1) of the Act, the CPC, Bengaluru hurriedly processed the same by denying the claim of deduction under section 80P of the Act.
We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. In this case, since the return of income for both the assessment years were not filed within the due date of filing as specified under section 139(1) of the Act, the DCIT-CPC, Bengaluru disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80P of the Act and the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance made under section 80P of the Act by the Assessing Officer.
Before the Tribunal, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has argued that despite having time to process the return of income under section 143(1) of the Act, the DCIT-CPC, Bengaluru hurriedly processed the return of income under section 143(1) of the Act without waiting for the outcome of the condonation petition filed before the CBDT. In view of the fact that the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay before the CBDT under section 119(2)(b) of the Act, it is opined that once the delay condonation is pending before the CBDT, the Department ought to have waited for the decision of the CBDT, for the reason that, if the CBDT condone the delay, the claim of the assessee has to be considered in accordance with law. Therefore, we set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to wait for the decision on the condonation petition filed by the assessee before the CBDT and thereafter pass order in accordance with law.
In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 14th June, 2023 at Chennai.
More judgments on Section 80P
- Shree Bandharda Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd… vs Income Tax Officer Ward -4, JunagadhITA 881/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Duddukuru Primary Agricultural Cooperative… vs ITO, Ward - 1, TadepalligudemITA 258/VIZ/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Parthasaradhi Mutually Aided Co-Operative… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), HyderabadITA 2322/HYD/2026[AY 2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026
- Jijamata Mahila Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari… vs ITO Ward -1, BhandraITA 102/NAG/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Shri Na vs Ari Khedut Sahkari Society Ltd…ITA 362/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S.Shree Construction, Khordha vs. The Principal Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- Pramod Kumar Behera vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- Santosh Kumar Pradhan (Late Biswabhar Pradhan) vs. The Chief Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise And Customs, BhubaneswarOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- Mrs. Sharma Glass And Plywoods vs. The Commercial Tax OfficerKarnataka · 4 Nov 2026
- Sri Mohanraj vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial TaxesKarnataka · 4 Nov 2026