ANAND SAHAKARI PATHASANSTHA MARYADIT MUMBAI,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 41(2)(1), MUMBAI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“SMC” BENCH MUMBAI
BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER &
HON’BLE SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Anand Sahakari
Pathasanstha Maravadit
Mumbai
Ground Floor, Janakalyan
HSG Society, Varsha Nagar
Parksite Vikhroli,
Mumbai- 400079
Vs.
ITO
Ward
41(2)(1),
Mumbai
Kautilya Bhavan,
Mumbai - 400051
PAN/GIR No. AAEAA3233G
(Applicant)
(Respondent)
Assessee by Shri Ravindra Naik
Revenue by Shri Harendra Verma, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing
17.02.2026
Date of Pronouncement
12.03.2026
आदेश / ORDER
PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 09.09.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National
Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for the assessment year 2018-19. The following grounds are reproduced below:
“1. The Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC has erred in not considering entire income of the assessee eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i).
2
2. The Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC has erred in considering incorrect due date of filing of return and denying deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i).
Your appellant further reserves the rights to add, amend or alter the aforesaid grounds appeal as they may think fit by themselves or by their representatives.”
All the grounds raised by the assessee are interrelated and interconnected and relates to challenging the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in denying deductions under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Therefore, we have decided to adjudicate these grounds through the present consolidated order. 3. We have heard the counsels for both parties, perused the material placed on record, the judgments cited before us, and the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities. From the records, we noticed that the deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 80P of the Act was denied while processing the return under Section 143(1) of the Act on the ground that the return filed by the assessee on 11.10.2018 was not filed within the limitation period. However, thereafter the assessee filed an application for rectification of the mistake under Section 154 of the Act on the ground that the return of income was filed well within time. The said application filed by the assessee under Section 154 of the Act was also rejected. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) which was also rejected.
3
5. After having meticulously gone through the facts of the present case and from the records we noticed that the assessee filed its return on 11.10.2018. The CBDT Circular, which is at Paper Book Page Nos. 14–15, clearly mentions that the due date for filing the return of income as well as the audit reports, which were initially required to be filed up to 30.09.2018, was extended up to 15.10.2018. Thereafter, the said date was again extended up to 31.10.2018 vide press release issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) on 08.10.2018. Therefore, considering these facts, we are of the view that the assessee had filed its return well within time.
6. Since the claim of the assessee was not entertained by the Revenue Authorities only on the ground that the return filed by the assessee was not within time, whereas after considering the overall facts we conclude that the return filed by the assessee was well within time.
7. Therefore, considering these facts, we set aside the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the grounds raised by the assessee on merits.
8. Before parting, we want to make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute which shall be adjudicated by CIT(A) independently in accordance with law.
4
9. Needless to mention that the Ld. CIT(A) shall provide adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings
10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse stands allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 12.03.2026 (PRABHASH SHANKAR)
JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai, Dated 12/03/2026
आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant
2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.
3. संबंधित आयकर आयुक्त / The CIT(A)
4. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / Concerned CIT
5. धिभागीय प्रधतधिधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण,मुम्बई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file.
आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER,
सत्याधपत प्रधत ////
उि/सहायक िंजीकार ( Asst.