THE SURELI DUDH UTPADAK SAHKARI MANDLI LTD,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GODHRA

“एसएमसी”/ ‘िवशेष �ायपीठ’/ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद �ायपीठ, अहमदाबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD �ी संजय गग�, �ाियक सद� एवं �ी नरे� �साद िस�ा, लेखा सद� के सम� Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member And Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं /ITA No.58/Ahd/2026 िनधा�रण वष� /Assessment Year : 2019-20 The Sureli Dudh Utpadak Sahkari Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Ward 1, Mandli Ltd., Sureli, Ta. Shahera, Godhra, Gujarat -389001 Panchmahal, Gujarat-389 210. v/s. �थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AABAT7067J (अपीलाथ�/ Appellant) (�� यथ�/ Respondent) Assessee by : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue by : Smt. Ananya Kulshresth, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 08/04/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 29/06/2026 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), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”] dated 24.07.2025 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20 u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”).

ITA No.54/Ahd/2026, AY-2019-20 The Sureli Dudh Utpadak Sahkari Mandli Ltd. Vs. ITO 2 2. The appeal is time barred by delay of 101 days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed. Considering the averments made in the application, the delay in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned.

4.1 Being aggrieved by the said order of the Ld. AO, the Assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and pleaded that the Assessee could not file the return of income in time due to lack of awareness about the amended provisions of Section 80P and Section 80(AC)(ii) of the Act. However, the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the aforesaid contentions and dismissed the appeal of the Assessee, by observing as under:

“… 6.2.2 As per the provisions of section 80AC(ii), no deduction under any provisions of Chapter VIA under the head "C-deduction in respect of certain incomes" will be allowed w.e.f. 01/04/2018 unless an assessee filed the return of his income on or before the due date specified under sub section (1) of section 139. Since the said provision was effective from 01/04/2018, the assessment year involved in the present case falls within the purview of amended section 80AC of the Act as the return of income was filed beyond the extended due date. Thus, since the return has

ITA No.54/Ahd/2026, AY-2019-20 The Sureli Dudh Utpadak Sahkari Mandli Ltd. Vs. ITO 3 been filed beyond the extended due date u/s 139(1) of the Act, the appellant is not eligible to claim deduction u/s 80P rws 80AC.

6.2.3 The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Veerappampalayam Primary Agricultural Co-op Society Ltd. Vs DCIT [138 taxmann.com 571] dealt the similar issue in WP No. 7038 of 2020 and has decided the matter in favour of the revenue. The Hon'ble Court has held as under:

"Section 80AC of the Income Tax Act, 1961- Deduction- Not to be allowed unless return furnished Belated Return)- Assessment Year 2018-19- Whether provisions of section 80AC (ii) make it clear that any deduction that is claimed under Part of Chapter VIA would be admissible only if return of income in that case were tiled within prescribed due date-thus, no of Part C of Ch VIA would be admissible in case of a belated return - Held Yes Papa Peld, yes, whether

The Hon'ble Court has noted that the provisions of section 80AC are very clear in the sense that the any deduction claimed under Part C of Chapter VIA would be admissible only if return of income is filed within prescribed due date. As the date of filing of return of income is apparent from the return itself, the AO CPC, could easily draw an inference whether the claim of deduction is admissible in accordance with the provisions of section 80AC of the Act which is a basically a mechanical exercise and falls within purview of section 143(1)(a) of the Act.

Further, in a latest decision in the case of Janki Vaishali Co-op Housing Society Ltd. Vs CIT(A), NAFAC, the Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai Bench in ITA No. 944/Mum/2022( AY 2018-19) has also laid the similar position of law and upheld the decision of the Ld.CIT(A) wherein the disallowance u/s 80P of the Act was upheld for the reason that the return of income was filed beyond the due date as specified in section 139(1) of the Act.

6.2.4 Further, at this juncture, it would not be irrelevant to discuss the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CC v. Dilip Kumar & Company [2018] 95 taxmann.com 327/69 GST 239, wherein the Hon'ble Court has laid down following principles:

ITA No.54/Ahd/2026, AY-2019-20 The Sureli Dudh Utpadak Sahkari Mandli Ltd. Vs. ITO 4 (a) Exemption notification/provisions should be interpreted strictly, the burden of proving applicability would be on the assessee to show that his case comes within the parameters of exemption clause or exemption notification.

(c) In case of ambiguity in a charging provision, the benefit must necessarily go in favour of subject/assessee but the same is not true for an exemption notification wherein the benefit of ambiguity must be strictly interpreted in favor of the revenue/state

From the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above case, it is amply clear that the provisions of exemption as well as deduction provided in the Statute are to be interpreted strictly and onus always lies with the claimer to substantiate that there is no violation of governing provisions while claiming exemption/deduction as per the law. By following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dilip Kumar, it is clear that the onus was on the appellant to substantiate that the claim of deduction was admissible in accordance with the governing provisions of the Act. However, it is clear that in the instant case, there is clear violation of provisions of section 80AC(ii), therefore, the claim of deduction is also not admissible in the light of the provision of section 80AC(ii) and in view of the decision of Apex Court in the case of Dilip Kumar (Supra).

6.3 Further, the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Bangalore and another Vs. M/s Wipro Limited (Judgment dated 11.07.2022 in the Civil Appeal No. 1449 OF 2022) has applied strict construction to reverse the findings of the Hon'ble High Court ("HC") of Karnataka which had earlier allowed carry forward of such losses. The Hon'ble SC held that the requirement of filing a declaration within a timeline is "mandatory" in nature as per the language of the provision. It reiterated the age-old principle that a taxing statute should be read as it is and held that the exemption/ deduction provisions should be "strictly" and "literally" complied with and, therefore, a strict interpretation should be adopted.

6.4 In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the AO has rightly disallowed the dividend and interest income. Also as discussed above the appellant is not entitled for deduction u/s 80P the claim of deduction u/s 80P as the return of income was filed beyond the due date. The appellant has relied upon several judicial

ITA No.54/Ahd/2026, AY-2019-20 The Sureli Dudh Utpadak Sahkari Mandli Ltd. Vs. ITO 5 decisions however the facts are not related to deduction u/s 80AC and hence not applicable. Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion and relying upon the provisions of section 80AC and the judicial pronouncements referred above, the ground of appeal is dismissed…” 5. The Ld. AR of the Assessee could not point out any distinguishing fact or legal proposition justifying our interference with the above reproduced, well-reasoned order of the Ld. CIT(A). There is no merit in the appeal of the Assessee and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

Sd/- Sd/- ( Narendra Prasad Sinha ) ( Sanjay Garg ) Accountant Member Judicial Member अहमदाबाद/Ahmedabad, िदनांक/Dated 29/06/2026 DS, PS 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� ( ) / The CIT(A)- अपील 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध , , अहमदाबाद/DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad. आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स�ािपत �ित //True Copy// सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ITAT, Ahmedabad