R1014 GUDALUR PRIMARY AGRI COOP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,GUDALUR RAKKAMPATTY POST ,KULITHALAI KARUR 639120 vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KARUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the delay in filing the return was subsequently condoned by the CCIT under Section 119(2)(b). Therefore, the basis for denying the Section 80P deduction no longer existed.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society, filed its return of income for AY 2021-22 after the due date, claiming a deduction under Section 80P. The CPC disallowed this deduction, and the CIT(A) upheld the disallowance.
What were the issues?
Whether the deduction under Section 80P is allowable when the return of income is filed after the due date, but the delay is subsequently condoned.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T VARKEY & SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘बी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI श्री एबी टी वर्की, न्याययर्क सदस्य एवं श्री एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1519/Chny/2026 ननिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2021-22 R-1014 Gudalur Primary Agri Co- The Income Tax Officer, operative Credit Society Ltd. vs. Karur. Gudalur Rakkampatty Post Kulithalai, Karur – 639 120. [PAN: AABAR-3822-P] (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) (अपीलाथी/Appellant)
अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. G.Reddi Prakash, C.A प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 12.05.2026 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 08. 06.2026 आदेश /O R D E R PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, AM :
The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 21.01.2026 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Gurugram (hereinafter referred to as “ld.CIT(A)”), dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee against the intimation order dated 13.12.2024 passed by the CPC u/s.143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), pertaining to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2021-22. 2. The sole ground raised by the assessee is that the AO has denied the deduction u/s.80P of the Act for the reason that the assessee has filed its return
:-2-: ITA. No:1519/Chny/2026. of income after the due date prescribed u/s.139(1) of the Act for the A.Y. 2021- 22. 3. Brief facts of the case emanating from the records are that the assessee is a Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit society, filed its return of income on 01.11.2023 admitting an income of Rs.NIL after claiming deduction of Rs.46,94,365/- u/s.80P of the Act for the A.Y.2021-22. Thereafter, an intimation order dated 13.12.2024 was passed by the Central Processing Centre (hereafter referred to as “CPC”) wherein the sum claimed for deduction u/s.80P of the Act was disallowed on the ground that the return was filed after the due date as specified u/s.139(1) of the Act and a demand of Rs.37,39,260/- was raised against the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the CPC, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) vide Form 35 dated 10.06.2025. During the proceedings before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee submitted that it is a Primary Agricultural Co- operative Credit Society and the society does not have qualified accountant to comply with accounting and Taxation Laws & Procedures. The Assistant Director, Dept. of Cooperative Audit, Government of Tamilnadu, audits the financial statements prepared by the society staff and audit report based on the verification of books maintained by the Society. Due to lack of sufficient number of Cooperative auditors in the Cooperative Audit Department during the previous years there was a delay in completion and issuance of reports to the society and also due to Corona Pandemic-19, delay in completion of audit and lack of manpower were unable to file the return of income of the society for the respective year. However, upon receiving intimations from the Income Tax Department, the assessee promptly approached an auditor and filed the Return of Income u/s.139(8A) of the Act. Therefore, the assessee filed an application u/s.119(2)(b) of the Act before the ld.PCIT to condone the delay in filing the return of income and allow the deduction u/s.80P of the Act and the ld.CCIT, Madurai is condoned the delay by passing an order u/s.119(2)(b) of the Act dated 16.03.2026.
:-3-: ITA. No:1519/Chny/2026. 5. The ld.CIT(A), however observed in the order passed u/s.250 of the Act, that the last date for filing return u/s.139(1) of the Act was 15.03.2022. But the assessee has filed the return after the due date i.e., on 01.11.2023. Since the deduction u/s.80P can be claimed only if it is filed within the due date as per Section 80AC of the Act, the ld.CIT(A) confirmed that the disallowance of the AO with respect to the deduction u/s.80P of the Act is correct. Further, the ld.CIT(A) stated that the application for condonation of delay in filing of return of income is a separate proceeding and based on the subsequent decision on such application, necessary action would be taken by the JAO. Thereafter, the ld.CIT(A) rejected the appeal of the assessee by way of an order dated 21.01.2026. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee has preferred the present appeal before us.
The ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the assessee had filed an application u/s.119(2)(b) of the Act dated 24.12.2025 before the ld.CCIT, Madurai to condone the delay in filing the return of income and allow the deduction u/s.80P of the Act, stating that the return of income has been belatedly due to delay in completing the audit by the Department of Co- operative Audit, Government of Tamilnadu. The ld.AR submitted that the delay has been condoned by the ld.CCIT vide his order u/s.119(2)(b) of the Act dated 16.03.2026 for the A.Y.2021-22. In view of the above, the ld.AR prayed that the Tribunal may be pleased to set aside the order of ld.CIT(A) and remit the issues to the file of AO.
Per contra, the ld.DR fairly agreed for remitting the matter back to AO for considering the condonation order of the ld.CCIT to verify the claimed deduction u/s.80P of the Act on merits. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee filed its return of income for the impugned Assessment Year 2021-22 on 01.11.2023, which was beyond the due date prescribed u/s.139(1) of the Act, while claiming deduction u/s.80P
:-4-: ITA. No:1519/Chny/2026. of the Act and declaring ‘Nil’ income. It is observed that the CPC, while processing the return, disallowed the claim of deduction u/s.80P of the Act on the ground that the return of income had not been filed within the time stipulated u/s.139(1) of the Act, thereby attracting the provisions of section 80AC of the Act. Aggrieved by such disallowance, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal for the reasons discussed in the impugned appellate order. Challenging the said findings, the assessee is now in further appeal before this Tribunal. 10. During the course of hearing before us, the ld.AR placed on record a copy of the order passed u/s.119(2)(b) of the Act by the ld.CCIT, Madurai, dated 16.03.2026, whereby the delay in filing the return of income for the Assessment Year 2021-22 has been condoned. In view of the subsequent condonation granted by the competent authority u/s.119(2)(b) of the Act, the very basis on which the deduction claimed u/s.80P of the Act came to be denied no longer survives. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to restore the matter to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) with a direction to examine the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s.80P of the Act as made in the return of income filed on 01.11.2023 and thereafter allow the same, if found eligible, in accordance with law after due verification.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 08th June, 2026 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (एबी टी वर्की ) (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (ABY T VARKEY) (S. R. RAGHUNATHA) न्याययर्क सदस्य/Judicial Member लेखासदस्य/Accountant Member चेन्नई/Chennai, दिन ांक/Dated, the 08th June, 2026 Devadas
:-5-: ITA. No:1519/Chny/2026. आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपिि/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी/Respondent 3.आयकर आयुक्त/CIT– Chennai/Coimbatore/Madurai/Salem 4. ववभागीय प्रनतननधि/DR 5. गार्ा फाईल/GF
DEVADAS Digitally signed by DEVADAS GOPALANACHARY GOPALANACHARY Date: 2026.06.10 15:05:57 +05'30'
More judgments on Section 80P
- Shree Bandharda Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd… vs Income Tax Officer Ward -4, JunagadhITA 881/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Duddukuru Primary Agricultural Cooperative… vs ITO, Ward - 1, TadepalligudemITA 258/VIZ/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Parthasaradhi Mutually Aided Co-Operative… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), HyderabadITA 2322/HYD/2026[AY 2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026
- Jijamata Mahila Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari… vs ITO Ward -1, BhandraITA 102/NAG/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Shri Na vs Ari Khedut Sahkari Society Ltd…ITA 362/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ratul Boro vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Jashwant Sharma vs. The Union Of INDIA And A4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Jeyarani Shopping Centre vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer -1/The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 14 Oct 2026
- Rohan Tanna vs. Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax IntelligenceChhattisgarh · 14 Oct 2026
- Dipak Saikia vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026