Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed its return for AY 2024-25 on 17.10.2024, claiming a deduction under Section 80P. The return was not e-verified initially but was later verified and dispatched via Speed Post on 13.11.2024. The CPC disallowed the deduction, stating the return was filed beyond the due date.
Held
The Tribunal held that the return was filed within the due date as the assessee had discharged its statutory obligation by dispatching the verified ITR-V within the prescribed time, and any delay in transit should not penalize the appellant. Section 27 of the General Clauses Act was invoked to presume service.
Key Issues
Whether the disallowance of deduction under Section 80P was justified when the return was dispatched within the due date, despite a delay in delivery due to postal transit.
Sections Cited
80P, 139(1), 143(1), 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, 80AC
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: MS. PADMAVATHY S & SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI
आदेश / O R D E R
PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:
This captioned Appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), AADL/JCIT (A)-2, PUNE dated 27.09.2025 for Assessment Year 2024-25
Brief Facts of the Case:The appellant filed its return of income in Form ITR-5 for AY 2024-25 declaring gross total income of Rs.2,72,945/- and claiming deduction u/s. 80P of the Act for the same amount. The return was initially filed on 17.10.2024 without e-verification. Subsequently, the appellant duly verified the return by dispatching Form ITR-V through Speed Post on 13.11.2024. The CPC processed the return u/s. 143(1) of the Act and disallowed the deduction claimed u/s. 80P on the ground that the return was not filed within the due date prescribed u/s. 139(1) of the Act, thereby creating a demand of Rs.92,230/-.
Aggrieved by the said intimation, the appellant preferred the appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Before the ld.CIT(A), the appellant submitted that although the return was filed on 17.10.2024, it could not be e-verified immediately. The duly verified ITR-V was sent through Speed Post on 13.11.2024, well within the prescribed period. Due to postal delay, the same was delivered to CPC, Bengaluru on 16.11.2024, which fact is supported by India Post acknowledgment. It was further submitted that the appellant had complied with all statutory requirements, and any delay in delivery of ITR-V was beyond its control. Despite explaining these facts during processing, the CPC failed to consider the submissions and mechanically disallowed the deduction. The appellant raised multiple grounds, inter alia, contending that: • The impugned intimation is erroneous in law and facts. • The CPC failed to consider evidence proving timely dispatch of duly verified ITR-V.
• Once the appellant performed its statutory obligation by dispatching ITR-V within time, it could not be penalized for postal delay. • Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, creates a presumption of service once properly addressed and posted. • The CPC incorrectly reckoned the date of filing as 18.11.2024 despite evidence of earlier service. • Even otherwise, intervening holidays (Saturday and Sunday) were not properly considered. The ld.CIT(A) affirmed the order of the AO, CPC as under:
6.1 I have carefully examined the facts of the case, the grounds of appeal
, the submissions of the appellant, and the documents placed on record. The sole issue involved is whether the deduction u/s. 80P was rightly disallowed on the ground that the return was allegedly filed beyond the due date prescribed u/s. 139(1) of the Act. Now, the aggrieved Assessee is in appeal before the ITAT, Chennai.
4. The ld.AR reiterated the submissions which were argued before the ld.CIT(A).
5. Per contra, ld.DR supported the order of the ld.CIT(A) and referred section 80AC of the Act.
6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record and sections relied. The relevant events and dates chart is as under: Sl. Date Day Event No. 17.10.2024 Thursday Return of income for AY 2024-25 1 filed u/s. 139(1) without e- (AY 2024-25) ED2042 PK AYYAMPALAYAM MPCS LTD. (Vs.) ITO ward-2(1) verification. 13.11.2024 Wednesday ITR-V verified and dispatched by 2 Speed Post. 15.11.2024 Friday Due date for filing return u/s. 3 139(1). 4 16.11.2024 Saturday ITR-V delivered to CPC, Bengaluru. 18.11.2024 Monday CPC treated return as processed / 5 ITR-V served.
7. It is an undisputed fact that the return of income was filed on 17.10.2024. The ITR-V was duly verified and dispatched by Speed Post on 13.11.2024, i.e., before the due date. The delay, if any, occurred in transit and not due to any inaction on the part of the appellant. Once the appellant has discharged its statutory obligation by sending the duly verified ITR-V within the prescribed time, the presumption of service u/s. 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 squarely applies. The appellant cannot be expected to ensure physical delivery beyond dispatch through an authorized postal system. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Hiralal (1996) 7 SCC 523 held that service shall be deemed to have been effected when the letter is properly addressed, prepaid and posted. CPC cannot disregard this statutory presumption without rebuttal evidence. Further we note that 16.11.2024 was a Saturday and 17.11.2024 a Sunday should have been excluded from the limitation as held by the Hon’ble court in the case of R N Fashion vs. Union of India [2022] 139 taxmann.com 539 (Calcutta)/[2023] 450 ITR 134 (Calcutta)[20-05-2022].
8. In view of the above facts and legal position, we hold that the return of income is to be treated as validly filed within the time (AY 2024-25) ED2042 PK AYYAMPALAYAM MPCS LTD. (Vs.) ITO ward-2(1) prescribed u/s.139(1) of the Act. Consequently, the appellant is entitled to deduction u/s.80P of the Act.
In the result, the addition made by disallowing deduction u/s. 80P amounting to Rs. 2,72,945/- is deleted. The demand raised vide intimation u/s.143(1) dated 17.01.2025 is directed to be deleted.
In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.