K 629 MERKUPATHY PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY,TIRUPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2) TIRUPUR, TIRUPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1189/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 June 2025AY 2022-234 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the Addl. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance of the Section 80P deduction based on the return being filed beyond the due date, thus making it ineligible under Section 80AC. However, the Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's submission that a condonation petition under Section 119(2)(b) was pending before the CCIT, Coimbatore, and that the Addl. CIT(A) had not considered this fact. The Tribunal found that the matter required reconsideration in light of the pending condonation petition. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the file of the Addl. CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh after the decision of the CCIT, Coimbatore. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, K 629 Merkupathy Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society, filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2022-23 on 28.04.2023, claiming a deduction of Rs.74,03,422/- under Section 80P of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Centralized Processing Center (CPC), Bengaluru, issued an intimation under Section 143(1) disallowing this claim, stating the return was filed beyond the due date prescribed under Section 139(1). The assessee appealed to the Addl. CIT(A), who confirmed the disallowance, citing Section 80AC of the Act. The assessee then filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The delay in filing the return was attributed to the auditor not completing the audit by the due date.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 80P of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is justified when the return of income was filed beyond the due date prescribed under Section 139(1), making it ineligible as per Section 80AC of the Act. Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that a petition under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act for condonation of delay in filing the return was pending before the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCIT), Coimbatore. The assessee contended that the Addl. CIT(A) decided the appeal without considering this pending petition and requested the ITAT to set aside the order and restore the matter for fresh consideration after the CCIT's decision. Revenue's contention: The Revenue relied on the orders of the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P,Section 143(1),Section 139(1),Section 80AC,Section 119(2)(b),Section 139(8A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI & SHRI JAGADISH

For Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, JCIT
Hearing: 17.06.2025Pronounced: 26.06.2025

आदेश / O R D E R PER JAGADISH, A.M: Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year (A.Y) 2022-23 arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl./JCIT(A)-9, Delhi [hereinafter “Addl. CIT(A)”] dated 18.03.2025 in the matter of an intimation dated 13.12.2024 issued by Centralized Processing Center, Bengaluru (CPC) u/s. 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”).

2.

The only effective ground of appeal in this appeal of assessee is against the order of Ld. Addl. CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance of Rs.74,03,422/- claimed u/s. 80P of the Act.

1.

1. 3. The assessee is a Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society, incorporated under the Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 and filed its return of income for A.Y 2022-23 on 28.04.2023 u/s. 139(8A) of the Act. The assessee in the return of income has claimed deduction u/s. 80P of the Act of Rs.74,03,422/-. However, the CPC, Bengaluru through intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act, disallowed the claim on the ground that the return was filed beyond the due date prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. Addl. CIT(A). The Ld. Addl. CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowance on the basis that the return was not filed within the due date and, therefore, as per Section 80AC of the Act, the deduction u/s. 80P of the Act was not allowable.

4. Before us, the Learned Authorized Representative (AR) submitted that the assessee has already filed a petition u/s. 119(2)(b) of the Act before the CCIT, Coimbatore, seeking condonation of delay in filing the return of income. The said petition is currently pending. It was submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded to decide the matter without considering the pendency of the condonation petition.

Accordingly, it was requested that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and the matter be restored for fresh consideration after the decision of the CCIT.

5.

On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), has relied on the orders of lower authorities.

6.

We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. The Ld. Addl. CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowance of the claim of deduction u/s 80P of the Act on the ground that the return was not filed within the due date prescribed, and therefore, in light of Section 80AC of the Act, the deduction was not allowable. However, the assessee has submitted that a condonation petition u/s. 119(2)(b) of the Act has been filed and is pending before CCIT, Coimbatore. The Ld. Addl. CIT(A) did not take note of this fact into account while deciding the appeal. The assessee has submitted that the delay in filing the return was attributed to the fact that the appointed auditor had not completed the audit by the due date. Since, the assessee has filled a condonation petition, which is still pending, we are of the view that the matter requires reconsideration. In view of above, we remand the matter back to the file of Ld. Addl. CIT(A) for deciding the appeal after the decision of the CCIT, Coimbatore. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 26th day of June, 2025 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 80P

All 5,069 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →