SHREE SIDDHANATH NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. ITO WD-5(2), PUNE

ITA 1050/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 September 2026AY 2020-214 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 703 days in filing the appeal, finding that the delay was not intentional and was due to a reasonable cause, namely, the assessee's dependence on their tax consultant who failed to communicate the passing of the impugned order. The Tribunal relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. and Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. On the issue of deduction under section 80P(2)(d), the Tribunal held that the assessee, being a Credit Cooperative Society, is entitled to the benefit for interest received on investments held with Cooperative banks, amounting to Rs.33,62,093/-. This finding was based on the judicial precedent set by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in Thorapadi Urban Co-op Credit Society Ltd & Others vs ITO, which followed CIT vs The Salem Agricultural Producers Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. The Tribunal reversed the finding of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Regarding the remaining income, the Tribunal held that postage charges, dividend, processing charges, legal charges, and loan form fee, amounting to Rs.5,36,900/-, are directly attributable to the business of providing credit facilities and thus eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal took note of a coordinate bench decision in the assessee's own case for A.Ys. 2018-19 and 2019-20. The Tribunal reversed the finding of the ld. CIT(A) and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the total claim of Rs.38,98,993/-. All grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Shiddhanath Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Pune Bench, for Assessment Year 2020-21. The appeal was filed with a delay of 703 days. The assessee sought condonation of this delay, citing reliance on their tax consultant who failed to communicate the passing of the impugned order. The order under challenge was passed by the ld. NFAC, Delhi, arising from an assessment order dated 08.09.2022 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee is a Credit Cooperative Society engaged in providing credit facilities to its members. The core dispute revolves around the denial of deduction under section 80P of the Act.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessee is entitled to condonation of delay of 703 days in filing the appeal, considering the reasons provided by the assessee (question of fact and law). 2. Whether the assessee, a Credit Cooperative Society, is entitled to a deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for interest received on investments held with Cooperative banks (question of law). 3. Whether the assessee is entitled to a deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for other income such as postage charges, dividend, processing charges, legal charges, and loan form fee, which are directly attributable to its business of providing credit facilities (question of law). Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the failure of their tax consultant to inform them about the order, constituting a reasonable cause. They contended that they are entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(d) for interest income from cooperative banks and under section 80P(2)(a)(i) for other business-related income, relying on judicial precedents. The assessee relied on the judgments in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. and Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh for condonation of delay. For the deduction, they relied on Thorapadi Urban Co-op Credit Society Ltd & Others vs ITO and CIT vs The Salem Agricultural Producers Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd, and also a coordinate bench decision in their own case for earlier assessment years. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue regarding the issues.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P,Section 143(3),Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. Shingte
For Respondent: Dr. Amit Munde
Hearing: 25.08.2026Pronounced: 29.09.2026

The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2020-21 is directed against the order dated 31.01.2024 of ld.NFAC, Delhi which is arising out of Assessment Order dated 08.09.2022 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2.

Registry has pointed out that the appeal is barred by limitation as the assessee has filed the appeal with a delay of 703 days. Assessee has filed affidavit explaining the reasons for delay. On due consideration of the said reasons which mainly includes dependence on tax consultant who failed to communicate about passing of the impugned order, we find that ‘reasonable cause’ prevented the a

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 →