NO 779 VEERAGANUR PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO- OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD-1(6),SALEM, SALEM

The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: ‘’1) The order of the learned CIT(A) is bad and erroneous in law. 2) The Learned First Appellate Authority erred in not considering the submissions filed by the Appellant including the mention of pendency of condonation petition filed before the Central Board of Direct Taxes in proper perspective. 3) The Learned First Appellate Authority erred in not considering that the CPC, Bengaluru erred in hurriedly processing the Return of Income by Intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act without waiting for the outcome of the Delay Condonation Petition filed under Section 119(2)(b) before the CBDT, despite mentioning it in the Impugned Order’’.

Brief facts of the case are that the Assessee filed its return of income on 28.03.2022 declaring total income at Rs. NIL. The said return dated 28.03.2022 was processed u/s 143(1) on 30.09.2022 determining total income at Rs.7,49,430/-. In the said intimation order u/s 143(1) dated 30.09.2022 the CPC Bengaluru made disallowances of deduction u/s 80P(2)(c)(ii) and u/s 80P(2)(d) on the ground that the return was filed belatedly beyond the the extended due date of 15.03.2022.

The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Since the assessee has not filed the return of income withinthe extended due date of 15.03.2022 accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment and dismissed the ground raised by the assessee. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

By filing copy of the application under section 119(2) of the Act, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee has filed a condonation petition before the CBDT under section 119(2) of the Act to condone the delay in filing the return of income. It was further submission that despite having time to process the return of income under section 143(1) of the Act, the CPC, Bengaluru hurriedly processed the same by denying the claim of deduction under section 80P of the Act.

We have heard the rival submissions, perused the materials available on record and gone through paper book, the orders of authorities below. In this case,since the return of income for the assessment year 2021-22 was not filed within the extended due date of 15.03.2022,the DCIT-CPC, Bengaluru disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80P of the Act and the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance made under section 80P of the Act by the Assessing Officer.

Before the Tribunal, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has argued that despite having time to process the return of income under section 143(1) of the Act, the DCIT-CPC, Bengaluru hurriedly processed the return of income under section 143(1) of the Act without waiting for the outcome of the condonation petition filed before the CBDT. In view of the fact that the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay before the CBDT under section 119(2)(b) of the Act, it is opined that once the delay condonation is pending before the CBDT, the Department ought to have waited for the decision of the CBDT, for the reason that, if the CBDT condone the delay, the claim of the assessee has to be considered in accordance with law. Therefore, we set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to wait for the decision on the condonation petition filed by the assessee before the CBDT and thereafter pass order in accordance with law.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA 269/CHNY/2024 for assessment year 2021-2022 is allowed for statistical purposes.