SANT GAJANAN GRAMIN BIGER SHETI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,MUKTAINAGAR vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 591/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 June 2024AY 2021-22Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the return was filed within the extended due date as per CBDT notification. Therefore, the CPC should not have disallowed the Section 80P deductions.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a cooperative society, filed its return of income belatedly claiming deductions under Section 80P. The CPC disallowed these deductions citing the late filing of the return.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of Section 80P deduction by the CPC was justified when the return was filed within the extended due date.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P,Section 143(1)(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA

For Appellant: Shri Madhukar Shirude
For Respondent: Shri Shashank Deogadkar
Hearing: 06.06.2024Pronounced: 06.06.2024

This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of Addl./JCIT(A), Kolkata, dated 15.02.2024 for the assessment year 2021- 22.

2.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is a Cooperative Society established under the Maharashtra Co.op Societies Act, 1960. It is engaged in the business of providing credit facilities to its members and accepting deposits from them. The Return of Income for the assessment year 2021-22 was filed belatedly on 22.03.2022 declaring Nil after claiming deduction of Rs.12,35,695/- u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) and Rs.8,48,117/- u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act. The said return was processed vide intimation dated 28.12.2022 u/s.143(1)(a) disallowing the deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i)/80P(2)(d) of the Act on the ground that the Return of Income was not filed within the prescribed time.

3.

Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A)/NFAC, who vide impugned order confirmed the action of the CPC disallowing the deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i)/80P(2)(d) of the Act.

4.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal.

5.

The ld. AR submits that the Return of Income was filed within the prescribed due date as extended by the CBDT vide Notification No.17/2021, dt. 09.09.2021 and therefore CPC ought not to have disallowed the claim for deduction u/s.80P of the Act.

6.

On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR expressed disagreement with the submission made on behalf of the appellant.

7.

We heard both the sides perused the material on record.

Admittedly, the Return of Income was filed within the due date as prescribed, extended by CBDT vide Notification No.17/2021, dt.

09.09.2021. Therefore, the CPC ought not to have denied the exemption u/s.80P of the Act. In the circumstances, we remit the matter back to the CPC with a direction to amend the intimation u/s.143(1) by allowing exemption u/s.80P of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed.

8.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced on this 6th day of June, 2024.

More judgments on Section 80P

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →