SATARA ZILHA SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA FEDERATION LIMITED,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SATARA, SATARA

The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a Credit Cooperative Society engaged in providing credit facilities to members. The Assessing Officer (A.O) has received information that the assessee has significant financial transactions in F.Y.2021-22. The assessee has filed the return for the A.Y. 2022- 23 on 19.12.2024 disclosing a total income of Rs.13,76,450/- after claiming deduction u/sec80P of the Act. Subsequently, the return of income was processed u/sec 143(1) of the Act by the CPC/AO denying the claim of deduction u/sec80P of the Act as the assessee has not filed return of income u/sec 139(1) of the Act and the conditions stipulated under section 80AC of the Act are not complied by the assesse. Finally the total income was assessed of Rs.27,86,590/- vide order u/sec143(1) of the Act dated 22.12.2025. 3. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal with the CIT(A). Whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal, statements of facts and finding of the AO and issued notice of hearings and since there was no compliance by the assessee to the notices, therefore, CIT(A) considering information on record has confirmed the action of the AO/CPC and dismissed

At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO/CPC overlooking the provisions that the assessee is eligible for deduction u/sec80P of the Act of the assessment proceedings and the non compliance of notices before the CIT(A) was not intentional. Further, the Ld.A.R. submitted that the assessee has filed an application under section 119(2)(b) of the Act for condo nation of delay in filling the return of income for A.Y.2022-23 with the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Pune on 31.01.2025 and is pending. The Ld.AR mentioned that the assesse has a good case on merits and shall substantiate with material evidences and prayed for an opportunity to explain before the lower authorities. Per contra, the Ld. DR supported that the order the CIT(A). 5. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Prima facie CIT(A) has passed the order considering the facts that there is no compliance in spite of providing adequate opportunity of hearing and notices were issued. Therefore, CIT(A) was of the opinion that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal and dismiss the appeal ex-parte confirming the action of the Assessing Officer. Whereas the assesse has raised grounds of appeal challenging the denial of claim of deduction u/sec80P of the Act by the A.O/CPC. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has filed an application under section 119(2)(b) of the 3