Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a cooperative credit society, claimed a deduction under Section 80P. The CPC disallowed this deduction because the return was filed after the due date. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, directing the AO to treat the assessee as being in default until a petition for condonation of delay was disposed of.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without awaiting the decision on the condonation petition. The matter requires fresh consideration.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal when the assessee's petition for condonation of delay was pending. Whether the matter should be remitted for de novo adjudication.
Sections Cited
143(1), 80P, 119(2)(b), 139(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI JAGADISH
आदेश / O R D E R
PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2023-24 arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Thiruvanantpuram [hereinafter “Addl. CIT(A)”] dated 31.07.2025 vide intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) issued by Centralized Processing Center, Bengaluru [AO] dated 02.02.2024.
YK 56 C Goodalur PACB Ltd. :- 2 -:
When the appeal was taken up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Accordingly, the hearing was proceeded with the able assistance of Ld. D.R, Mr. R. Raghupathy, Addl. JCIT.
The assessee is a Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society registered under the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983. In the return of income, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s. 80P of the Act amounting to Rs. 7,25,821/-. The CPC, Bengaluru, vide intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act, disallowed the claim of deduction u/s. 80P on the ground that the return was not filed within the prescribed due date. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) directed the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to treat the assessee as in default of tax until the petition for condonation of delay u/s. 119(2)(b) of the Act is disposed of by the competent authority, and thereafter dismissed the appeal.
The assessee in the ground of appeal has stated that that the Ld.
1. 1. CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal, especially when the assessee’s petition seeking condonation of delay in filing the return is still pending before the competent authority.
YK 56 C Goodalur PACB Ltd. :- 3 -:
The Ld. Departmental Representative (D.R.), on the other hand, relied on the orders of the lower authorities.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the CPC disallowed the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s. 80P of the Act for the reason that the return was filed beyond the due date prescribed u/s. 139(1) of the Act.
However, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay before the competent authority, which is still pending consideration. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground that the assessee had not filed the return within the due date, despite the fact that the condonation petition was awaiting disposal. In our considered opinion, the matter requires fresh consideration.
Accordingly, we deem it fit to remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for denovo adjudication after receipt of the order on the condonation petition filed for delay in filing the return. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.
YK 56 C Goodalur PACB Ltd. :- 4 -:
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 28th day of November, 2025 at Chennai.