CHEERANCHIRA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,KOTTAYAM vs. ITO, WARD 1& TPS, THIRUVALLA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 127/COCH/2024Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 October 2024AY 2018-2019Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member), Shri Amarjit Singh (Accountant Member)2 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80P was not allowable because it had not filed its return of income within the prescribed time period, thereby violating Section 80AC(ii).

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2018-19 was rejected in limine by the CIT(A)/NFAC for non-payment of advance tax. The sole substantive issue was a claim for deduction under Section 80P.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P when its return of income was filed beyond the due date, thus violating Section 80AC(ii).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P,Section 139(1),Section 80AC(ii),Section 249(4)(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN

Before: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Smt. Swathy, Advocate
For Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR
Hearing: 16.08.2024Pronounced: 23.10.2024

O R D E R Per Bench

This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2018-19 arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)]’s DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1048268550(1) dated 27.12.2022 in proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).

Heard both parties. Case file perused.

2.

It emerges at the outset that although the learned CIT(A)/NFAC has rejected the assessee’s lower appeal in limine, on account of non-payment of advance tax u/sec.249(4)(a) of the Act, we do not see purpose of remanding the matter back once it emerges during the course of hearing that it’s sole substantive issue herein raising sec.80P deduction claim, is itself is not allowable as it had not filed its’ sec.139(1) return dated 24.12.2022; well within the prescribed time period up-to 31.10.2018 and therefore, violated sec.80AC(ii) of the Act.

3.

All these clinching facts have gone un-rebutted from assessee side. That being the case, we see no merit in the assessee’s instant appeal once it has failed to ensure compliance of sec.80AC(ii) of the Act. Rejected accordingly.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is dismissed in above terms.

More judgments on Section 80P

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →