ANAND SAHAKARI PATHASANSTHA MARYADIT MUMBAI,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 41(2)(1), MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee had filed its return within the extended due date, as per the CBDT circulars and press releases. Consequently, the denial of deduction based on the return being filed late was incorrect.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed its return of income on 11.10.2018. The return was initially processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the deduction claimed under Section 80P was denied on the ground that the return was filed beyond the limitation period.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee's return of income was filed within the prescribed limitation period to be eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 250,Section 80P(2)(a)(i),Section 80P,Section 143(1),Section 154
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI
Anand Sahakari Vs. ITO Ward 41(2)(1), Pathasanstha Maravadit Mumbai Mumbai Kautilya Bhavan, Ground Floor, Janakalyan Mumbai - 400051 HSG Society, Varsha Nagar Parksite Vikhroli, Mumbai- 400079 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. 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).
3. 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.
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.
Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) which was also rejected.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse stands allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 12.03.2026
Sd/- Sd/- (PRABHASH SHANKAR) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 12/03/2026 आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 2. संबंधित आयकर आयुक्त / The CIT(A) 3. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / Concerned CIT 4. धिभागीय प्रधतधिधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण,मुम्बई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. 6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, सत्याधपत प्रधत //True Copy//
उि/सहायक िंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, मुम्बई / ITAT, Mumbai
More judgments on Section 80P(2)(a)(i)
- Duddukuru Primary Agricultural Cooperative… vs ITO, Ward - 1, TadepalligudemITA 258/VIZ/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Parthasaradhi Mutually Aided Co-Operative… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), HyderabadITA 2322/HYD/2026[AY 2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026
- The Development Multipurpose Credit &… vs ITO Ward 2 (4), Porbandar, GujaratITA 458/RJT/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hislop College Employees Cooperative Credit… vs ITO Ward 2(3), NagpurITA 184/NAG/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Jijamata Mahila Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari… vs ITO Ward -1, BhandraITA 102/NAG/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026