Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a primary agricultural co-operative credit society, filed its return of income at Nil after claiming a deduction under Section 80P. The AO disallowed this deduction because the return was not filed within the due date mandated by Section 80AC. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal, as the assessee had filed an application for condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) before the CCIT, Coimbatore, and the delay had been condoned. The impugned order was set aside, and the AO was directed to allow the deduction.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal for delay in filing the return when the delay was condoned by the CCIT under Section 119(2)(b)?
Sections Cited
80P, 143(3), 143(3A), 143(3B), 80AC, 119(2)(b), 139(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI & SHRI JAGADISH
आदेश / O R D E R
PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19 arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 02.06.2025 in the matter of assessment framed by the Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Income-tax Act,1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) on 23.02.2021.
The assessee is a primary agricultural co-operative credit society registered under Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and has filled return of income at Nil after claiming deduction u/s 80P of the Act. The A.O has disallowed the claim of deduction u/s.80P of the Act, in the order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act as the assessee has not filled return within due date as mandated by section 80AC of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A).
However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal upholding the order of A.O.
The Ld. Authorized Representative (A.R) of the assessee has submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly relied on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of AA 520 Veerappampalayam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. v. DCIT [2022] 138 taxmann.com 571 (Mad) and dismissed the appeal, despite the fact that Ld. CCIT, Coimbatore had already condoned the delay in filing the return. It was argued that the Ld.
CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal when Ld. CCIT, Coimbatore passed order u/s. 119(2)(b) of the Act, and condoned the delay. The Ld. AR therefore pleased that the appeal of the assessee be allowed.
On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), has relied on the orders of lower authorities.
We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. The A.O has disallowed the claim of deduction u/s. 80P of the Act solely on the ground that the return was not filled within the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. The assessee, however, has filed an application for condonation of delay u/s. 119(2)(b) of the Act before the CCIT, Coimbatore, and delay has been condoned. In such circumstances, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal ignoring the condonation order of Ld. CCIT. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and direct the A.O to allow the claim of deduction u/s. 80P of the Act.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 29th day of September, 2025 at Chennai.