TOWN VIVIDODDESHA SAHAKARI BHANDARA NIYAMITHA,TUMKURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 & TPS, TUMKURU, TUMKURU

ITA 2457/BANG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 August 2026AY 2017-186 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, a credit cooperative society, claimed deduction under Section 80P. The CIT(A) allowed the deduction subject to verification of dealings with non-members. However, the AO disallowed a significant portion in the order giving effect, which was passed without a hearing. The assessee's subsequent appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a 91-day delay.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal, citing confusion regarding the appropriate remedy and reliance on auditors' advice. The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for de novo consideration.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned due to sufficient cause, and whether the order giving effect was passed in violation of natural justice and limitation provisions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P,Section 143(3),Section 250,Section 153(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

PER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 13.04.2026, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessmen

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 80P

All 4,983 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →