S2754 SLM CORPORATION ELE AND MID SCHOOL TEACHERS COOP T 7C SOC LIMITED,SALEM vs. ADIT,CPC, BENGALURU
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is to decide the issue afresh after considering the CBDT's decision on the assessee's condonation petition.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80P but filed its return of income after the due date. The audit of the society's accounts was also delayed. The CPC denied the deduction, and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal.
What were the issues?
Whether the denial of Section 80P deduction was justified when a condonation petition for delayed filing was pending 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 G. Manjunatha
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, dated 25.11.2022 relevant to the assessment year 2019-20.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income for the assessment year 2019-20 on 03.10.2020 admitting NIL income, after claiming deduction under section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. The accounts of the assessee society were not audited under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act,1983 within the time allowed under section 139(1) of the Act. The audit under TN Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 was over only on 30.12.2019 as evidences by the auditor certificate which was after the due date for filing of the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. Therefore, the CPC, Bengaluru denied the claim of deduction under section 80P of the Act.
The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee has filed condonation petition under section 119(2)(b) of the Act before the CBDT requesting for condonation of delay in filing the return of income and the same is pending. It was further submitted that despite having time to process the return of income under section 143(1) of the Act, the CPC, Bengaluru hurriedly processed the same on 11.01.2021 and denied the claim of deduction under section 80P of the Act without waiting for the outcome of the condonation petition filed before the CBDT. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) has observed that the application which the assessee has placed reliance on was, in fact, addressed to the ITO, Ward 1(1) dated 23.11.2021, whereas, the date of order passed under section 143(1) of the Act was 11.01.2021. Thus, by then the order under section 143(1) of the Act had already been passed by the CPC, Bengaluru. Since the assessee has not corroborated its grievance with any evidence or any cogent arguments, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.
On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. By reiterating the submissions as made before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. Counsel has submitted that despite having time to process the return of income under section 143(1) of the Act, the CPC, Bengaluru hurriedly processed the same on 11.01.2021 and denied the claim of deduction under section 80P of the Act without waiting for the outcome of the condonation petition filed before the CBDT.
On the other hand, the ld. DR strongly supported the orders of authorities below.
We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. The case of the assessee is that despite having time to process the return of income under section 143(1) of the Act, the CPC, Bengaluru hurriedly processed the same on 11.01.2021 by denying the claim of deduction under section 80P of the Act without waiting for the outcome of the condonation petition filed before the CBDT. By filing copy of the petition for condonation of delay filed before the CBDT under section 119(2)(b) of the Act, the ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed for suitable directions.
6.1 We have gone through the copy of the petition for condonation of delay filed before the CBDT under section 119(2)(b) of the Act. In view of the petition for condonation of delay filed before the CBDT under section 119(2)(b) of the Act, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh after considering the decision of the CBDT on the petition for condonation of delay filed by the assessee under section 119(2)(b) of the Act.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 29th March, 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 →- Sukant Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA And 6 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S New Sana Brick Field vs. Union Of INDIA And 4 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Vinay Singh vs. Union Of INDIAAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Aaradhyam Infrabuilders PVT LTD vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026