O 909 AYAN VADAMALAPURAM PACCS,TUTICORIN vs. ITO, WARD-1,, TUTICORIN
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘सी’ Ɋायपीठ चेɄई मŐ।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
‘C’ (SMC) BENCH, CHENNAI
माननीय ŵी मनोज कुमार अŤवाल ,लेखा सद˟ एवं
माननीय ŵी मनु कुमार िगįर, Ɋाियक सद˟ के समƗ।
BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.3228/Chny/2024
(िनधाŊरणवषŊ / Assessment Year: 2023-2024)
O 909 Ayan Vadamalapuram
Primary Agriculture Credit Co- operative Society,
1/49, Ayan Vadamalapuram,
Tuticorin 628 902. [PAN:AAAAO 2658R]
Vs. The Income Tax Officer,
Ward 1,
Tuticorin.
(अपीलाथȸ/Appellant)
(Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent)
अपीलाथȸ कȧ ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate
Ĥ×यथȸ कȧ ओर से /Respondent by : Ms. V. Aswathy, JCIT.
सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख/Date of Hearing
: 26.02.2025
घोषणा कȧ तारȣख /Date of Pronouncement
: 25.03.2025
आदेश / O R D E R
PER MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld.
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Addl/JCIT (A)-1 Ludhiana [CIT(A)] dated
29.11.2024 for Assessment Year 2023-24. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for AY
2023-24 on 01.11.2023 declaring total income at Rs.Nil. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 02.02.2024, determining total income at Rs.13,19,120/-.
The CPC, Bengaluru has passed the intimation order in terms of Section 143(1) of the Act disallowing the claim of deduction u/s 80P of the Act to the tune of Rs.13,19,120/- and determined total tax payable at Rs.4,83,080/-. The ld.CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO. Now assessee is in further appeal before us.
Before us, the ld.counsel submitted that the ld.CIT(A) erred in denying the benefit of deduction claimed u/s 80P, without waiting for the outcome of the condonation petition filed u/s 119 of the Act before the competent authority/CBDT , New Delhi for the validating delayed return of income. He further, contended that the ld.CIT(A) erred in denying the claim of deduction u/s 80P on account of delay in verification of the return by one (1) day.
The ld. DR relied upon the order of the ld.CIT(A).
We have heard the both parties. We are of the considered view that the ld.CIT(A) should have waited for the outcome of the condonation petition filed before the competent authority/CBDT for the validating delayed return of income. Hence, we set aside and remand back the appeal to the file of the ld.CIT(A) to await for the outcome of the competent authority/CBDT on the condonation petition for validating delayed return filed. After receipt of the order of the competent authority/CBDT on the aforesaid petition, the ld.CIT(A) will take his judicial view according to law. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 25th day of March, 2025 at Chennai. (मनोज कुमार अŤवाल)
(मनु कुमार िगįर)
(MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL)
लेखा सद˟ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
(MANU KUMAR GIRI)
Ɋाियक सद˟ / JUDICIAL MEMBER
चेɄई Chennai:
िदनांक Dated :25-03-2025
KV
आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत /Copy to :
1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant
2. ŮȑथŎ/Respondent
3. आयकरआयुƅ/CIT, Chennai/Coimbatore/Madurai/Salem.
4. िवभागीयŮितिनिध/DR
5. गाडŊफाईल/GF