PERUCHETTIPALAYAM PACCS,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NCW-4(1), COIMBATORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3255/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 February 2025AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have waited for the outcome of the condonation application for the delayed return before deciding on the deduction. Therefore, the appeal is set aside and remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after the appropriate authority decides on the condonation application.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed its return of income for AY 2018-19 on 13.02.2019, declaring 'Nil' income after claiming a deduction of Rs.32,26,418/- u/s 80P. The AO disallowed this deduction as the return was filed after the due date. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in denying the deduction u/s 80P without waiting for the outcome of the condonation application for the delayed return of income?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P,Section 80P(2)(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL & HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI

Hearing: 24.02.2025Pronounced: 24.02.2025

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) (NFAC) Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 18.11.2024 for Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 13.02.2019 declaring total income at Rs.Nil after claiming deduction of Rs.32,26,418/- u/s 80P of the Act. The AO disallowed the deduction claimed u/s 80P as the assessee has filed its return of income after the due date of filing of return of income. The ld.CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO. Now assessee is in further appeal before us.

3.

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 application filed before the appropriate authority for the delayed return of income. He further, contended that the ld.CIT(A) erred in denying the claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) on the interest income derived by the appellant society on the investment made by it in the District Central co-operative Banks.

4.

The ld. DR relied upon the order of the ld.CIT(A).

5.

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 application filed before the appropriate authority for the 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 appropriate authority on the condonation application for delayed return filed. After receipt of the order of the appropriate authority on the aforesaid application, 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 24th day of February, 2025 at Chennai. (मनोज कुमार अ"वाल) (मनु कुमार िग"र) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) लेखा सद" / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER "ाियक सद" / JUDICIAL MEMBER चे"ई Chennai: िदनांक Dated :24-02-2025 KV आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत /Copy to : 1. अपीलाथ"/Appellant

2.

""थ"/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु"/CIT, Coimbatore 4. िवभागीय"ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड"फाईल/GF

More judgments on Section 80P

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →