VIVIDODDHESHA PRATHAMIK GRAMEEN KRUSHI SAHAKAR SANGH NIYAMIT BEDKIHAL,BEDKIHAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, NIPPANI, NIPPANI

The only grievance in the instant appeal is that deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act at Rs.41,85,785/- has not been allowed to the assessee as the documentary evidences could not be produced.

Registry has pointed out that the appeal is barred by limitation as the assessee has filed the appeal with a delay of 583 days. Assessee has filed affidavit explaining the reasons for delay. On due consideration of the said reasons, we find that ‘reasonable cause’ prevented the assessee from filing the appeal within the stipulated time limit. We find that the delay is not intentional and therefore placing reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condone the delay of 583 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication.

At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee failed to furnish the details in support of genuineness of the sale discount of Rs.1,25,324/- and further could not furnish the details of interest income of Rs.56,51,533.0 on loan advances given to its Members as well as Non- members/Nominal members and also details of deposits received from its Members/Non-members. Therefore, ld. Counsel for the assesee prayed for affording one more opportunity to the assesee and remitting the issue to the file of ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for necessary verification of the details. He further submitted that assessee has also earned interest income on deposits with other Cooperative Banks which is eligible for deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act and that in assessee’s own case for A.TY. 2017-18 this Tribunal in ITA No.24/PAN/2023 dated 06.10.2023 has allowed the claim of interest income earned from Nationalised

On the other hand, ld. DR though supported the order of ld.CIT(A) but did not strongly opposed the request made by ld. Counsel for the assessee.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record placed before us. We note that the assessee is a Cooperative Credit Society and assessment for A.Y. 2020-21 has been concluded on 16.09.2022 and against the returned income of Nil declared in the return of income for A.Y. 2020-21 filed on 19.12.2020 after claiming deduction under VIA of the Act at Rs.41,85,785/- ld. Assessing Officer assessed the income disallowing the deduction u/s.80P of the Act and further making disallowance of sale discount at Rs.1,25,324/- has assessed the income at Rs.43,11,109/-. We further note that though the assessee failed to get any relief before ld.CIT(A) however considering the contentions made by ld. Counsel for the assessee and that the eligibility of the assesee for deduction u/s.80P(2)(d)/80P(2)(a)(i) for the interest from investments held with Cooperative Banks/Nationalised Banks as held in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2017-18, we deem it appropriate to restore all the issues in the instant appeal to the file of ld.Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (ld. JAO) for denovo adjudication. Ld.JAO shall examine the claim made by the assessee under Chapter VIA of the Act in light of the said decision and allow the same if the said claim is in conformity with the decision of the Tribunal. Needless to mention that ld.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

The Pr. CIT concerned. विभ गीय प्रतितनधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, Panaji 4. ‘SMC’ Bench / DR, ITAT, Panaji ‘SMC’ Bench ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. 5. आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER,