SHALIMAR CO.OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the AO/CPC made a mistake in disallowing the deduction, as the return was filed within the extended period. The delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was due to the assessee pursuing rectification remedies with the AO.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 12,05,230/- under Section 80P(2)(d). The CPC disallowed this deduction initially, believing the return was filed late. Although the AO later accepted the return was filed within the extended due date, the deduction was inadvertently not granted. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to a significant delay in filing.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal on grounds of limitation when the delay was caused by pursuing rectification remedies with the AO, and whether the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was wrongly disallowed.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD ] ] Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member And Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं /ITA No.960/Ahd/2026 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shalimar Co. Op. Housing Society ITO Ltd., बनाम/ Ward-1(1)(3), v/s. Ground Floor, Nr. Embassy Market, Ahmedabad Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AAAAS8368L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Divyaknat Parikh, AR Revenue by : Shri Ashish K Pandey, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 29/07/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 03/08/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), ADDL/JCIT(A)-2, Hyderabad [hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] dated 13/02/2026 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2018- 19. 2. The assessee in this appeal is aggrieved by the action of the Assessing Officer (in short “the AO”) in disallowing the deduction claimed of Rs. 12,05,230/- u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the CPC, while processing the return, noted that the return was filed beyond the due date, therefore, the impugned deduction claimed by the assessee was disallowed. The Shalimar Co. Op. Housing Society Ltd. vs. ITO
assessee filed rectification application u/s 154 of the Act pleading that the date for filing the return was extended by the CBDT and therefore, the return was filed within the prescribed period. The AO accepted the said contention and even deleted the fees levied u/s 234F and interest u/s 234A of the Act. However, inadvertently, did not give relief relating to the disallowance made of Rs. 12,05,230/- u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The assessee, thereafter, moved one after the another rectification applications before the AO, which were not entertained/decided by the AO. The assessee ultimately filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, there was a delay occurred of 1988 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee pleaded before the Ld. CIT(A) that the delay has occurred due to the reason that the assessee was availing the remedy of filing rectification application before the AO u/s. 154 of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) held that even if the assessee is given the relaxation of the limitation period in respect of time consumed in pursuing of his remedy u/s 154 of the Act, still there was a delay of more than 10 months. He, therefore, dismissed the appeal of the assessee being barred by limitation. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has come up in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. 6. Admittedly in this case there was a mistake on the part of the CPC/AO in not allowing the deduction to the assessee under the Shalimar Co. Op. Housing Society Ltd. vs. ITO
mistaken belief that the return was filed after due date, whereas, the CBDT had extended the date for filing of the return and hence, the return was filed within limitation period. The AO/CPC, in fact, has also accepted the said mistake, however, inadvertently failed to give relief relating to the disallowance made by the CPC u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. It is also apparent on record that the assessee had been pursuing his remedy before the AO and filed various rectification applications and ultimately waited for the outcome of the same and when there was no proper response received from CPC, the assessee ultimately had to file the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), resulting into the aforesaid delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).
The Ld. DR, otherwise, has fairly admitted that the AO was required to grant the relief to the assessee, having noted that the return was filed within the prescribed period. I, therefore, do not find justification on the part of the Ld. CIT(A) in disallowing the claim of the assessee. The impugned order of the CIT(A) is, therefore, set-aside. Appeal of the assessee stands allowed. The AO is directed to grant relief relating to the deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(d) of Rs. 12,05,230/-, as impugned. Appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 03/08/2026. (Narendra Prasad Sinha) Judicial Member अहमदाबाद/Ahmedabad, िदनांक/Dated 03/08/2026Tanmay, Sr. P.S. Shalimar Co. Op. Housing Society Ltd. vs. ITO
आदेश की "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ" / The Appellant 2. ""थ" / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु" / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु" अपील ( ) / The CIT(A)-(NFAC) 5. िवभागीय "ितिनिध आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद /DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad. , , 6. गाड" फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt.
More judgments on Section 80P(2)(d)
- Duddukuru Primary Agricultural Cooperative… vs ITO, Ward - 1, TadepalligudemITA 258/VIZ/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- S R P Jutha 13 Rajkot VI and Gr S Ma, Rajkot vs ITO WD 1(2)(1) Rajkot, RajkotITA 951/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Poonam Chambers B Wing Commercial Premises… vs Deputy Commissioner Income Tax, MumbaiITA 7044/MUM/2026[2021-2022]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2021-2022
- Poonam Chambers B Wing Commercial Premises… vs Deputy Commissioner Income Tax, MumbaiITA 7043/MUM/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Suvarnakarara Co-Operative Society Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, KarwarITA 210/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shaista Praween vs. The Assistant Commissoner Of GST And Central Excise, RourkelaOrissa · 6 Nov 2026
- Paonta Hp Centre vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 5 Nov 2026
- M/S Multitech Agro INDIA (Opc) PVT LTD vs. The State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 5 Nov 2026
- Gopa Satya Madhava Subbarao vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 5 Nov 2026
- M/S Kallu Cable vs. The Commissioner State Goods And Service TaxUttarakhand · 5 Nov 2026