NAVATHARANGINI MAHILA PODUPU PARASPARA SAHAKARA PARIMITHA SAMITHI,WARANGAL vs. ITO, WARD-2, WARANGAL

ITA 991/HYD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 February 2026AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G. (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide any evidence to support its claim for deduction under Section 80P and also failed to pay the cost imposed for recalling the earlier order. The appeal was filed beyond the limitation period.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a rural thrift and credit society, failed to file a return of income. The Assessing Officer made an addition on account of unexplained cash deposits during demonetization. The assessee's appeal was initially dismissed for being invalid and later recalled subject to cost, but the assessee again failed to appear and did not pay the cost.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P without filing a valid return and providing supporting evidence, and whether the appeal is maintainable given the repeated non-compliance and delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 80P,Section 144,Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI MANJUNATHA G.

Hearing: 18.02.2026

PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT :

This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 30.12.2023 of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-2018. 2 ITA.No.991/Hyd./2024

2.

Earlier this appeal of the assessee was dismissed

by this Tribunal vide order dated 02.01.2025 being invalid

appeal as the assessee did not remove the defect in the memo

of appeal in Form-36 which was neither signed nor verified

by or on behalf of the assessee. The relevant obser

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →