SS-10 PUPM THRIFT SOCIETY,SALEM vs. ADIT-CPC, BENGALURU
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is to decide the issue afresh after considering the decision of the CBDT on the condonation petition for the delayed filing of the return.
What were the facts?
The assessee failed to file its return of income within the due date for the assessment year 2019-20. Consequently, the CPC disallowed a claim for deduction under Chapter VI-A in the intimation order.
What were the issues?
Whether the disallowance of deduction under Chapter VI-A due to delayed filing of return was justified 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 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 19.12.2022 relevant to the assessment year 2019-20.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has not filed the return of income for the assessment year 2019-20 within the due date. Therefore, in the intimation order under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] dated 13.01.2021, the Assessing Officer, CPC disallowed the claim of deduction of ₹.28,09,241/- under chapter VI-A.
On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the main contention of the assessee was that the Assessing Officer, CPC has 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 for the belated filing of return of income. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) has observed that the grievance of the assessee requires an administrative solution and cannot be resolved by appellate proceedings as far as delay in filing of return of income and consequent loss of chapter VI-A deductions are concerned and dismissed the appeal of 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 only argument of the ld. Counsel was 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 13.01.2021 and denied the claim of deduction under section 80P of the Act under Chapter VI-A 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. Admittedly, the assessee filed its return of income on 01.10.2020, whereas, the assessee should have filed its return of income on or before 30.09.2019. The case of the assessee is that despite having time to process the return of income under section 143(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer, CPC, Bengaluru hurriedly processed the same on 13.01.2021 and denied the claim of deduction under section 80P of the Act under chapter VI-A 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 119(2)(b)
- Jijamata Mahila Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari… vs ITO Ward -1, BhandraITA 102/NAG/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Pushpa Chandra Raj Singhvi Charitable… vs CIT(Exemption), Income Tax Appellate TribunaITA 8820/MUM/2026[2026-27]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2026-27
- Pratik Deepak Agarwal, Lonavla vs Assessing Officer, Ward 9(3), Akurdi, PuneITA 2227/PUN/2026[2025-2026]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2025-2026
- Pushpa Bitan Friendship Society, Kolkata vs I.T.O., Ward - 1(4), Exemption, KolkataITA 2607/KOL/2026[2018-2019]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2018-2019
- Tiong Woon Project & Contracting Pte Ltd… vs ACIT, Intl. Taxn. Circle-2(2), ChennaiITA 1883/CHNY/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Principal Commissioner Of CustomsTelangana · 30 Oct 2026