INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, AHMEDNAGAR., AHMEDNAGAR vs. DEOLALI PRAVARA VIVIDH KARYAKARI SEVA SAHAKARI SANSTHA LTD. DEOLALI PRAVARA , RAHURI DIST. AHMEDNAGAR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed within the extended time limit of 30.09.2021 as per CBDT notification. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s finding that the order was time-barred was incorrect.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer (AO) passed an assessment order for AY 2018-19 on 21.09.2021. The assessee claimed deduction u/s 80P(2). The CIT(A) quashed the assessment order, holding it to be time-barred.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessment order for AY 2018-19 was time-barred given the CBDT's extension of time limits. The correctness of the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the assessment order on this ground.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
ORDER
PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:
This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 06.02.2024 passed by Ld CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2018-19.
The Revenue raised the following grounds of appeal :-
1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) was not justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee stating that assessment order passed by AO on 21.09.2021 for AY 2018-19 is timebarred whereas vide notification No. 74 of 2021 dated 25.06.2021 CBDT has extended time limit for completion of assessment upto 30.09.2021.
2. For these and such other grounds as may be urged at the time of hearing, the order of the ld. CIT(A) may be vacated and that of the AO restored.
The appellant craves to add, amend, alter or delete any of the above ground of appeal
during the course of appellate proceedings before the Hon’ble Tribunal.”
3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the respondent-assessee is a credit cooperative society engaged in the business of supplying/providing fertilizers as well as credit facilities to its members. The Return of Income for the assessment year 2018-19 was filed on 29.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs.47,49,927/- & taxable income of Rs.Nil after claiming deduction u/s 80P(2) of the IT Act. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment vide order dated 21.09.2021 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of IT Act denying the claim of exemption u/s 80P(2) as claimed by the respondent- assessee & assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.44,64,890/-.
4. Being aggrieved with the above action of the AO, an appeal was preferred by the assessee before LD CIT(A)/NFAC, who vide impugned order dated 06-02-2024 allowed the appeal of the assessee by holding that the assessment order for Asstt Year 2018-19 was passed beyond the time limit prescribed by CBDT & in view of this observation assessment order was quashed & the additions made were deleted.
5. Being aggrieved with the above order passed by LD CIT(A)/NFAC revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal.
6. On behalf of revenue LD DR submitted before us that LD CIT(A)/NFAC committed grave error in holding that the assessment order for Asstt Year 2018-19 passed by the AO on 21-09-2021 is time barred, whereas vide notification no 74 of 2021 dated 25-06- 2021 CBDT has extended the time limit for completion of assessment upto 30-09-2021. It was therefore requested before the bench to set-a-side the order passed by LD CIT(A)/NFAC & to restore that of the AO.
7. LD AR on the other hand fairly accepted the contention of LD DR on one count that for Asstt Year 2018-19, the date to complete the assessment was not upto 30-06-2021 but was extended by CBDT upto 30-09-2021 & therefore to this extent the order of LD CIT(A)/NFAC is not correct. But the request to restore the order of the AO was strongly opposed.
8. We have heard ld. counsels from both the sides & perused the material available on record. We find that as per Notification No 74 dated 25-06-2021 the time limit to complete the assessment was further extended upto 30-09-2021. It is an admitted fact that in the
More judgments on Section 80P(2)
- The Mrutyunjaya Large Size Co Operative… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, PalakolITA 839/VIZ/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed24 Jul 2026AY 2022-23
- Surathkal Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Bank… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), MangaloreITA 2299/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed11 May 2026AY 2020-21
- Surathkal Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Sangha… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), MangaloreITA 2298/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed11 May 2026AY 2018-19
- Surathkal Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Sangha… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), MangaloreITA 2297/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed11 May 2026AY 2017-18
- Mumbai Vidi Tambakhu Vyapari Sahakari… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 22(2)(2), Piramal…ITA 1801/MUM/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed7 May 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026