THE LANKALAKODERU LARGE SIZE CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED NO 1904,PALAKODERU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PALAKOL

अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri G.V.N.Hari, AR प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent by : Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date of Hearing 10.04.2024 : घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date of Pronouncement : 08.05.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member : These appeals are filed by the assessee against the orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060157942(1) dated 27.01.2024 and ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1058978403(1) dated 21.12.2023 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19 and 2020-21 respectively. I.T.A.No.86/Viz/2024 was filed with the delay of 15 days. The assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay, submitting that Sri Guduri Prasada Rao, Secretary of the assessee society and authorised signatory, suffered from severe lower back pain and was under treatment and bed rest during the period from 10.02.2024 to 28.02.2024. The secretary could not attend to any other affairs during this period and hence the appeal could not be filed within the due date. As soon as the condition improved, the Secretary took necessary steps and filed the appeal on 05.03.2024. The assessee submitted medical certificate as proof and submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate and therefore pleaded to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. In the instant case, the order of the Ld.CIT(A) was passed on 21.12.2023, as such, the appeal against the order ought to have been filed on or before 19.02.2024. However, the assessee filed appeal with the delay of 15 days, citing medical reasons. I have gone through the condonation petition and medical certificate filed by the assessee and find that there is a reasonable cause for filing the appeal belatedly. Hence, I condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing in the interest of justice.

Since the grounds raised in these appeals are identical, these appeals are clubbed, heard together and a common order is being passed for the sake of convenience as under. Facts are extracted from I.T.A.No.85/Viz/2024, A.Y.2018-19.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a large size co- operative credit society, filed it’s return of income for the A.Y.2018-19, declaring ‘Nil’ income, claiming deduction u/s 80P(2)(a) of the Act. The assessee‘s case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee to file information / documents. In response, the assessee filed submissions on 09.01.2021 and 18.01.2021, which were examined by the AO and a show cause notice cum draft assessment order was issued on 21.01.2021. After considering the reply filed by the assessee dated 27.01.2021, the AO denied the deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) by applying the decision of Apex Court in the case of M/s Totgars Co-op Sales Society and added it to the total income of the assessee as income from other sources, which do not qualify for deduction us/ 80P(2)(d) in respect of income received on investment made with co-operative banks. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(AA)(i) and 80P(2)(d) and computed the income of the assessee at Rs.43,80,340/-.

3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) sustained the addition made by the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal :

1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case.

2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.43,80,340/- made by the assessing officer towards disallowance of deduction u/s 80P of the Act.

3. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.

5. Ground No.1 and 3 are general in nature, which do not require any specific adjudication.

6. Ground No.2 is related to disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80P of the Act. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee is a Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society, registered with District