SREE SITARAMANJANEYA PACS LTD,KRISHNA DIST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, GUDIWADA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 389/VIZ/2025Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 April 2026AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order confirming the disallowance. Since no return of income was filed, the claim under section 80P could not be allowed, and the net income reflected in the books was rightly brought to tax.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 132 days, which was condoned. The Assessing Officer disallowed a claim under section 80P because the assessee failed to file a return of income, instead providing financial statements in response to a notice.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of the claim under section 80P was justified when the assessee failed to file a return of income. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the AO's order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P,Section 139,Section 142(1),Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM “SMC” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM

Before: SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, HON’BLE & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, CA
For Respondent: Shri CVA Rama Rao, Sr.AR
Pronounced: 24.04.2026

आदेश /O R D E R

PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM:

This appeal by the assessee against order dated 21.11.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ADDL/JCIT(A), Panaji [hereinafter in short “Ld. CIT(A)”] for the A.Y. 2017-18.

I.T.A.No.389/VIZ/2025 SREE SITARAMANJANEYA PACS LTD 2. We find this appeal was filed with a delay of 132 days. The assessee filed petition accompanied with an affidavit dated 31.07.2025 explaining the reasons to condone the said delay. Upon hearing both the parties and on perusal of the affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide which really prevented assessee in filing appeal in time. Thus, delay of 132 days condoned.

3.

The assessee raised five grounds of appeal amongst which only issue emanates for our consideration, as to whether the CIT(A) is justified in confirming the disallowance made by the A.O under section 80Pof the Act.

4.

At the outset, we note that, on an information regarding cash deposits to an extent of Rs.84,06,460/- in Krishna District Central Co-operative Bank, Unguturu, the A.O issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act calling for the return of income. According to A.O the said notice was served on the assessee but no return of income filed and the assessee filed information such as Trading Account, profit and loss account, Income & Expenditure Account, balance sheet as on 31.03.2017, comparative statements of cash deposits and cash sales were furnished in response to the show-cause notice dated 11.06.2019. Further, according to A.O, since no return of income filed as per provisions of section 139 of the Act, held, the claim under section 80P is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.18,53,834/- was disallowed and brought to tax vide his order dated 21.12.2019 passed under section 144 of the Act.

Page. No 2

I.T.A.No.389/VIZ/2025 SREE SITARAMANJANEYA PACS LTD 5. Having aggrieved by said order of the A.O, the assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority wherein the CIT(A) confirmed the order of A.O for non-cooperation of the assessee in the First Appellate Proceedings which is evident from Page No. 16 of the impugned order.

6.

Before us, the Learned Authorised Representative, Shri C. Subrahmanyam, CA [hereinafter in short “Ld.AR”] submits that the appeal may be disposed of taking into consideration the submissions of assessee before the A.O.

7.

The Learned Departmental Representative, Shri CVA Rama Rao, Sr.AR [hereinafter in short “Ld. DR”] reported no objection.

8.

Having heard both the parties and on perusal of the record, we note that no return of income was filed by the assessee under the relevant provisions under section 139 of the Act. The A.O issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act calling for return of income, but however assessee failed to file return of income at least in response to the notice under section 142(1) of the Act. The A.O issued show-cause notice and in response to which assessee filed Trading Account, profit and loss account, Income & Expenditure Account, balance sheet as on 31.03.2017, comparative statements of cash deposits and cash sales relevant to the year under consideration. According to A.O no claim under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act was claimed in the return of income, considering the same the A.O brought to tax the net income reflecting in the books of accounts and

Page. No 3

I.T.A.No.389/VIZ/2025 SREE SITARAMANJANEYA PACS LTD audit report. We find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the order of A.O in bringing to tax the net income as reflected in the profit and loss account, books of accounts and audit report. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and it is justified. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.

9.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 24th April, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (ओंकारेश्वर धिदारा) (एस.एस.धिश्वनेत्र रधि) (OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) लेखा सदस्य /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्याधयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated:24.04.2026 Giridhar, Sr.PS आदेश की प्रनतनलनप अग्रेनर्त/ Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. निर्धाररती/ The Assessee : SREE SITARAMANJANEYA PACS LTD 1-1 Tippanagunta Village Tippanagunta Post, Unguturu Mandal Kirshna – 521106, Andhra Pradesh 2. रधजस्व/ The Revenue : Income Tax Officer – Ward 2 Gudiwada, Andhra Pradesh 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 4. नवभधगीयप्रनतनिनर्, आयकरअपीलीयअनर्करण, नवशधखधपटणम /DR,ITAT, Visakhapatnam 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax 6. गधर्ाफ़धईल / Guard file आदेशधिुसधर / BY ORDER V S S Digitally signed by V S S GIRIDHAR GIRIDHAR BABU MEKALA BABU Date: 2026.04.24 MEKALA 13:34:02 +05'30' Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam

Page. No 4

More judgments on Section 80P

All 5,069 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →