SULTANPET TEACHERS CO-OP THIFT AND CREDIT SOCIETY CP126,PALLADAM vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, COIMBATORE

The Assessee raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The CIT(A) erred in treating the appeal as time-barred by wrongly construing it as against the 143(1) intimation instead of the rectification order. The finding is factually incorrect and legally unsustainable.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is a Co-operative Society duly incorporated under the provisions of The Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. It is engaged in the business of accepting deposits from members and providing credit facilities to its members. The appellant filed the Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2020-21 dated 13.01.2021 disclosing NIL income after claiming deduction u/s.80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The said Return of Income was processed by CPC u/s.143(1) of the Act vide intimation dated 25.11.2021 by restricting the deduction u/s.80P to Rs.10,41,676/- as against the claim of Rs.17,85,740/- disallowing the claim for deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) in respect of interest income earned from other Co- operative Societies of Rs.7,44,064/-.

Being aggrieved by the above said intimation, an appeal was filed before the ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 443 days. However, the ld.CIT(A) refused to condone the delay. Accordingly, dismissed the appeal in limine on the grounds of delay.

Being aggrieved by the order of ld.CIT(A), the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. The ld.Counsel submits that the ld.CIT(A) ought not have dismissed the appeal having regard to the explanation offered before him explaining the reasons for delay in filing appeal before him.

On the other hand, learned Sr.DR opposed the above submissions and submit that the explanation offered by the appellant is not a bonafide, therefore, the ld.CIT(A) had rightly refused to condone the delay.

We heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The solitary issue that arises for our consideration is whether the ld.CIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone the delay of 421 days. Admittedly, there is a delay of 421 days in present appeal before the ld.CIT(A) against the said intimation passed u/s.143(1) of the Act. The only explanation offered by the appellant is that the appellant had filed a petition u/s.154 of the Act seeking the rectification of intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act on 06.01.2023 and it was under bonafide impression that the rectifying application would be allowed by the Department. Since the rectification application not disposed of by the CPC and appeal was filed before CIT(A) as a precautionary measure while the rectification proceedings were pending before CPC. We are of the considered opinion that when the appeal was filed before CPC as precautionary measure while the petition seeking the rectification of intimation is still pending for disposal before CPC does not constitute a reasonable cause for the delay of filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Therefore, the ld.CIT(A) had rightly refused to condone the delay, accordingly appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 24th June, 2026.