Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a primary agriculture credit co-operative society, filed its income tax return for AY 2023-24 declaring Nil income. The CPC processed the return under Section 143(1), disallowing the Section 80P deduction of Rs. 13,19,120/- due to a one-day delay in verification, which was upheld by the CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred by not awaiting the outcome of the condonation petition filed under Section 119 with the CBDT for the delayed return verification. The case was therefore remanded to the CIT(A) to reconsider after the CBDT's decision on the condonation petition.
Key Issues
Whether the Section 80P deduction could be denied solely due to a one-day delay in return verification, without considering the pending condonation petition before the CBDT under Section 119.
Sections Cited
143(1), 80P, 119
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ (SMC
Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL & HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI
(िनधा�रणवष� / Assessment Year: 2023-2024) O 909 Ayan Vadamalapuram Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Primary Agriculture Credit Co- Ward 1, operative Society, Tuticorin. 1/49, Ayan Vadamalapuram, Tuticorin 628 902. [PAN:AAAAO 2658R] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ��यथ� क� ओर से /Respondent by : Ms. V. Aswathy, JCIT. सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 26.02.2025 घोषणा क� तार�ख /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.
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 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.