SHRI PRABHULINGESHWAR SOUHARDA PATTINA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMIT,JAMAKHANDI,JAMAKHANDI vs. ITO WARD-2,BAGALKOT, BAGALKOT

ITA 621/BANG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 September 2026AY 2017-1812 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 233 days in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause based on the assessee's explanation regarding the unavailability of digital credentials. The Tribunal relied on the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and Ors. (167 ITR 471) and the Chennai Tribunal in People Education & Economic Development Society Vs/ ITO (100 ITD 87), emphasizing that substantial justice should be preferred over technicalities. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC had dismissed the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating on merits, solely on the ground that the assessee did not file submissions or evidence. In the interest of justice, equity, and fair play, the Tribunal decided to remit the entire issues in dispute back to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication in accordance with the law. The assessee was directed to provide all relevant documents and was warned against further default. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Prabhulingeshwar Souharda Pattina Sahakari Sangha Niyamit, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against an order passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2017-18. The appeal was filed with a delay of 233 days. The assessee attributed this delay to the departure of its Assistant General Manager, who was handling accounts and tax filings, without transferring digital credentials. The assessee claimed to have become aware of the CIT(A)/NFAC's order only upon receiving a penalty order under Section 270A. The revenue objected to the condonation of delay, citing the assessee's alleged careless attitude.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 233 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal should be condoned, considering the reasons provided by the assessee. 2. Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in disallowing the claim of deduction of Rs. 18,28,610/- under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on an ex-parte order. 3. Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC failed to appreciate that the governing Act for the society's income should be followed, not the general taxing Act. 4. Whether the interest earned on investments made as per statutory norms is liable to be allowed as a deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the delay was unintentional and due to the unavailability of digital credentials after the Assistant General Manager left. They contended that the CIT(A)/NFAC passed an ex-parte order without adjudicating on merits and failed to consider that the governing Act for the society should take precedence. The assessee also argued that interest earned on statutory investments should be allowed under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). Revenue's Contentions: The revenue vehemently objected to the condonation of delay, arguing that the assessee exhibited a careless attitude by shifting responsibility to its Assistant General Manager.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P,Section 270A,Section 250,Section 253(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

Hearing: 29.07.2026Pronounced: 30.09.2026

PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 03.04.2025 vide DIN & Order No. 3.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1075446958(1) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The assessee has submitted the following grounds of appeal:- The appellant denies itself liable to be taxed on disallowance of Rs. 1. 18,28,610/- as assessed by the NFAC as against the return income of Rs. 4,27,000/- under

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 80P

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →