SHREE SIDDHANATH NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT ,PUNE vs. ITO WD-5(2), PUNE

आदेश /ORDER

PER Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, A.M : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Delhi [Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for AY 2021-22 on 06.02.2026.

ITA No. 1051/PUN/2026

of the Act held that the assessee was eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act for Rs.53,56,715/-. The said page is scanned and reproduced here as under :

2.1 Thus, it can be observed from the intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act reproduced above, as per Centralized Processing Center, the assessee was allowed deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act of Rs.53,56,715/- as claimed by the assessee. However, at page No. 36 of the said order the same amount of Rs.53,56,715/- has been disallowed. The said page is scanned and reproduced here as under :

2.2. Thus, on one page the deduction is allowed and on another page deduction has been denied in the same order passed u/s 143(1) of the Act. We have read the entire order consisting of 40 pages, however, nowhere the reason has been mentioned. We requested the Ld. DR to help us to understand the reason but the Ld. DR also could not specify the reason.

2.3 Aggrieved by the order u/s 143(1) of the Act, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal stating that the assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Thus, ironically the Ld. CIT(A) has not even bothered to read whether the assessee had claimed any deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act or not.

ITA No. 1051/PUN/2026

We have already reproduced the order u/s 143(1) of the Act wherein it is clearly visible that the assessee had claimed deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act.

2.4 Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before this Tribunal. We have already mentioned above that the Centralized Processing Center in the order u/s 143(1) of the Act at one place allowed deduction to the assessee u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act of Rs.53,56,715/- and at another place disallowed the same amount without giving any reason. Thus, there is inconsistency in the order u/s 143(1) of the Act. In these facts, the order u/s 143(1) of the Act cannot be sustained qua deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. As far as disallowance of bonus is concerned, we direct the AO to verify whether the amount was paid within the due date of filing of return of income or not. If it was paid within the due date for filing the return of income, then it is to be allowed. Accordingly, we direct the AO to allow the assessee claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act of Rs.53,56,715/- and verify the disallowance of bonus and allow as mentioned above.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 08th July, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे/Pune; दिन ांक/Dated : 08-07-2026 Ravi Kumar Digitally signed by Ravi Kumar Ravi Kumar Date: 2026.07.09 10:44:44 +05'30' आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. The concerned Pr. CIT, Pune 4. DR, ITAT, ‘B’ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण,पुणे / ITAT, Pune