THE SURAMANGALAM CO-OP. HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD.,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), SALEM
Page - 1 - of 3
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘‘ए’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI
श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिर्क सदस्य एवं श्री अयिताभ शुक्ला, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष
BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./ITA 2996 / Chny/2024, Assessment Years-2018-19
आयकर अपील सं./ITA 2997 / Chny/2024, Assessment Years-2019-20
The Suramangalam Cooperative House
Building Society Limited
No.13, Bharathiyar Street,
Suramangalam, H.O,
Salem.
Tamil Nadu-636 005. [PAN: AABAT0705B]
Income Tax Officer,
Ward-1(1),
Salem
(अपीलार्थी/Appellant)
(प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)
अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by :
Mr..S.Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) by virtual
प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by :
Dr.I.Roopa, Addl. CIT
सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing
:
27.02.2025
घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement
:
04.04.2025
आदेश / O R D E R
PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :
The below mentioned appeals have been filed by the appellant assessee for AY-2018-19 and AY-2019-20 contesting the order of Ld. First Appellate Authority indicated Column-E, herein below:-
S.
No.
Appeal
Nos.
AYs
Appellant
CIT(A) Order Details
Respondent
A B
C
D
E
F
2018-19
The Suramangalam
Cooperative House
Building
Society
Limited
No.13,
Bharathiyar
Street,
Suramangalam,
H.O,
Salem.
[PAN:
AABAT0705B]
DIN & Order No. ITBA /
NFAC / S / 250 / 2024-25 /
1070292490(1) dated
12.11.2024
Income
Tax
Officer,
Ward-1(1),
Salem
2019-20
DIN & Order No. ITBA /
NFAC / S / 250 / 2024-25 /
1070337589(1) dated
13.11.2024
ITA No.2996 & 2997/Chny/2024
Page - 2 - of 3
0 The twin appeals are centering around a common issue and hence for the purposes of convenience, adjudicated together. For the purposes of this adjudication the facts and figures for AY-2018-19 have been taken. The decision for AY-2018-19 shall apply mutatis mutandis for appeal AY-2019-20. 3.0 In ITA No.2996 for AY-2018-19, appellant assessee has contested that the action of the Ld. AO in not allowing it deduction u/s 80P of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that, admittedly, it had filed belated return as result of which deduction claimed u/s 80P of the Act was disallowed and affirmed by the Ld. First Appellate Authority. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that in compliance to latest CBDT instruction empowering CCIT to condone the delay in specified cases, it has petitioned condonation of delay and the same was pending. It was urged that in the event of its application getting accepted, it will become entitled for 80P deduction. The Ld. DR relied upon the orders of lower authorities. 4.0 We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. The only issue in the case is the denial of deduction u/s 80P on account of belated return filed by the assessee. In consideration of latest CBDT instruction, the assessee has petitioned condonation of delay before the competent authority. We therefore in the interest of ITA No.2996 & 2997/Chny/2024
Page - 3 - of 3
justice, set aside the order of lower authorities and direct the Ld.CIT(A) to await decision of the competent authority qua assessee’s petition for condonation of delay and decide accordingly. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
5.0
In the result the assessee’s appeal for ITA No.2996 is allowed for statistical purposes.
6.0
The decision taken herein above shall apply in assessee’s appeal vide ITA No.2997 for AY-2019-20, mutatis mutandis.
Order pronounced on 4th , April-2025 at Chennai. ( एबी टी. वकी)
(ABY T VARKEY)
न्याययक सदस्य / Judicial Member (अयिताभ शुक्ला)
(AMITABH SHUKLA)
लेखा सदस्य /Accountant Member
चेन्नई/Chennai, यदनांक/Dated: 4th , April-2025. KB/-
आदेश की प्रयतयलयप अग्रेयषत/Copy to:
1. अपीलार्थी/Assessee:
2. प्रत्यर्थी/Revenue
3. आयकर आयुक्त/CIT - Salem
4. यवभागीय प्रयतयनयि/DR
5. गार्ड फाईल/GF