UNNAT KRISHI SAHKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT,HATPIPLIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, DEWAS, DEWAS

आदेश/ O R D E R

Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 26.06.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”], which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 18.03.2025 passed by learned Assessment Unit of Income-tax Department [“AO”] u/s 144 r.w.s. 254 and 144B of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2018-19, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds as mentioned in Form No. 36 (Appeal Memo).

Page 1 of 8

Unnat Krishi Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit ITA No. 755/Ind/2025 – AY 2018-19 This is the 2nd round of appeal before ITAT. The background facts 2.

leading to present appeal are as under:

(i) The assessee-society filed its return of AY 2018-19 u/s 139(1) on

29.10.2018 declaring business income of Rs. 45,01,576/-; claiming

deduction of Rs. 45,01,576/- u/s 80P and thereby showing total

income at Rs. Nil (Copy of computation of total income is available at

Page 8 of Paper-Book). The CPC, Bengaluru [“CPC”] issued intimation

dated 04.05.2019 u/s 139(9) to assessee informing an error as “Please

provide details of audit report obtained u/s 44AB in Part-A-General”.

However, finding no response from assessee, the CPC/Ld. AO treated

assessee’s return as invalid/non-est in terms of section 139(9).

Ultimately, in the assessment framed u/s 144 vide assessment-order

dated 19.04.2021, the Ld. AO segregated business income of Rs.

45,01,576/- assessee in two components, (i) business income of Rs.

42,68,816/-, and (ii) interest income from investments of Rs.

2,32,260/-. Further, the AO disallowed deduction u/s 80P to assessee

invoking the restrictive provision of section 80AC according to which if

the return is not filed by due date, the deduction u/s 80P is not

allowable. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal before

CIT(A) but could not participate in the hearings fixed by Ld. CIT(A).

Therefore, the CIT(A) passed ex-parte order dated 30.10.2023 and

dismissed assessee’s appeal. The assessee thereafter carried matter in

Page 2 of 8

Unnat Krishi Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit ITA No. 755/Ind/2025 – AY 2018-19 next appeal to ITAT, Indore bench in ITA No. 519/Ind/2023 wherein

the ITAT, vide order dated 19.02.2024, remanded matter to the file of AO for a fresh adjudication. The 1st round ended here.

(ii) Pursuant to ITAT’s order, the AO resumed proceedings and issued

notices to assessee for a fresh assessment. Ultimately, the AO passed

assessment-order dated 09.01.2025 u/s 144 r.w.s. 254 and 144B of

the Act, repeating assessment in the same manner as framed earlier.

Aggrieved, the assessee again carried matter in first-appeal but did

not participate on the dates of hearing. The Ld. CIT(A) has noted thus

in Para 4 of impugned order:

“There was no submission to the notice issued to the appellant u/s 250. However, all the material facts necessary for adjudication of this appeal is available on record, therefore the case is being adjudicated without giving further opportunity to file arguments.” Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) passed ex-parte order dated 26.06.2025

wherein no relief was granted to assessee. Now, the assessee has

again approached ITAT assailing the order passed by Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, this is 2nd round before ITAT.

straightforward submission. He submitted that assessee’s return was

treated as invalid/non-est on the basis that the details of audit report u/s

44AB was not filled in “Part-A-General” of return. He submitted that the

accounts of assessee were audited on 29.10.2018 and the requisite details of

Page 3 of 8

Unnat Krishi Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit ITA No. 755/Ind/2025 – AY 2018-19 audit were duly filled in the return of income submitted by assessee. He filed

copy of return (ITR-5) submitted by assessee to show this factual aspect,

relevant portion of same is scanned below for an immediate reference:

income-tax website:

Page 4 of 8

Unnat Krishi Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit ITA No. 755/Ind/2025 – AY 2018-19

income-tax database on 30.10.2018. Therefore, what had happened is that

although the audit was done on 29.10.2018 but the e-filing of same was

completed on 30.10.2018. Hence, due to mis-match in dates i.e. 29.10.0218

Page 5 of 8

Unnat Krishi Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit ITA No. 755/Ind/2025 – AY 2018-19 and 30.10.2018, the CPC generated error and issued notice u/s 139(9)

which had ultimately led to treating assessee’s return as invalid/non-est as

well as invoking of restrictive provision of section 80AC. But, Ld. AR

submitted, the fact remains that the audit report was filed on

29.10.2018/30.10.2018 which was before due date of 31.10.2018

prescribed in section 139(1). Therefore, the action of Ld. AO in treating the

return of assessee as invalid/non-est, consequently invoking section 80AC

and denying deduction u/s 80P to assessee, is not valid.

advanced by Ld. AR nor did he dispute the documentary evidence placed on

record demonstrating that the audit report was duly filed on 30.10.2018, i.e.,

within the prescribed due date of 31.10.2018. However, Ld. DR submitted

that since the AO did not have opportunity to examine those documents and

verify the factual position, the matter may be restored to the file of the AO

for a fresh adjudication on merits, including for computation of correct total

income and allowability of deduction u/s 80P of the Act.

record. The core grievance of the assessee revolves around a narrow factual

issue that the error generated by CPC u/s 139(9) arose solely on account of

a one-day discrepancy between the date of audit i.e. 29.10.2018, as reflected

in the return, and the date of actual e-filing of audit report on income-tax

portal i.e. 30.10.2018. Both dates, however, fall within the statutory due

Page 6 of 8

Unnat Krishi Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit ITA No. 755/Ind/2025 – AY 2018-19 date of 31.10.2018 prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act. The documentary

evidence filed before us, comprising (i) assessee's ITR-5 and (ii) the acknowledgement of audit report uploaded on income-tax portal, prima facie supports assessee's contention. Since these documents were not examined

by AO and the Ld. DR has also not disputed the same, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of Ld. AO with a direction to examine assessee’s documents afresh, verify the date of filing of audit report

vis-à-vis the statutory due date, and thereafter pass a fresh assessment order after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard,

in accordance with law. It is further directed that, in the event the AO is satisfied that the audit report was indeed filed on or before due date, the restrictive provision of section 80AC shall not be invoked and the deduction

u/s 80P shall be allowed to the assessee as claimed, subject to its eligibility on merits. The appeal of the assessee is allowed in these terms.

Order pronounced in open court on 08/05/2026

Sd/- Sd/-

(PARESH M. JOSHI) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Indore िदनांक/Dated : 08/05/2026 Patel/Sr. PS

Page 7 of 8

Unnat Krishi Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit ITA No. 755/Ind/2025 – AY 2018-19

Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order E COPSr. Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore

Page 8 of 8