ED281 KUTTAITHAYIRPALAYAM MILK PRODUCERS COOPERATIVE SOCIETY,ERODE vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), ERODE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the authorities should have waited for the decision on the assessee's condonation petition filed before the CBDT. The matter was set aside and remitted back to the CIT(A) to await the CBDT's decision.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80P for AY 2018-19 and 2019-20. The returns were filed belatedly without explaining the delay, leading to disallowance by the AO and confirmation by the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether the authorities erred in processing the return and disallowing the deduction without waiting for the outcome of the delay 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:
Both the appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the different orders of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi both dated 03.02.2023 relevant to the assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed the return of income for the assessment year 2018-19 on 30.03.2019 admitting Nil income after claiming deduction under section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] of ₹.5,89,693/-. 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 31.12.2020. Similarly, disallowance under section 80P of the Act was also made for the assessment year 2019-2020.
The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) for both the assessment years under consideration. 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 the assessee has not explained the reasons for the delay in filing the belated return, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment and dismissed the ground raised by the assessee for both the assessment years.
On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal for both the assessment years. When the appeals were taken up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, despite hearing notice has been issued. Hence, we proceed to decide the appeals on merits after hearing the ld. DR.
We have heard the ld. DR, 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 ADIT, CPC disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80P of the Act. Since the assessee has not explained the reasons for the belated filing of return of income for both the assessment years, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance made under section 80P(2) of the Act by the Assessing Officer.
Before the Tribunal, the assessee has raised a specific ground that the ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the fact that ADIT-CPC, Bengaluru erred in hurriedly processing 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 petition for condonation of delay filed before the CBDT under section 119(2)(b) of the Act, we are of the considered opinion 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. Moreover, the assessee is also directed to furnish copy of the condonation petition filed before the CBDT.
In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29th May, 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 Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026