Which cases are most cited on Section 139(1)?

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565) — 2,590 citing judgments; CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. (321 ITR 508) — 1,629 citing judgments; Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (143 Taxmann.com 178) — 1,392 citing judgments; CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (366 ITR 170) — 1,158 citing judgments; CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (349 ITR 336) — 956 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 139(1)?

BharatTax indexes 8,117 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act?

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565) is the decision most relied on for Section 139(1), cited in 2,590 judgments. A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.263

Section 139(1) falls under section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 263 (Return of income) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 263 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 139(1) is CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), cited in 2,590 of the 8,117 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 139(1)

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory

359 ITR 565 · 2013 · High Court

2,590

citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.

CIT v. AIMIL Ltd.

321 ITR 508 · 2010 · High Court

1,629

citing judgments

Employee contributions to PF and ESIC, deposited beyond the due date under the respective Acts but within the due date for filing the income tax return under Section 139(1), are allowable deductions under Section 36(1)(va). Such disallowance cannot be made during processing under Section 143(1).

Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

143 Taxmann.com 178 · 2022 · Supreme Court

1,392

citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund and ESI deposited by an employer beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective special Acts are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Such disallowance can be made during processing under section 143(1).

CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation

366 ITR 170 · 2014 · High Court

1,158

citing judgments

Employees' contributions to welfare funds, such as provident fund, are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) if deposited beyond the due date prescribed under the respective welfare statutes, even by a single day. Such delayed deposits are not cured even if made before the income-tax return filing due date.

CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders

349 ITR 336 · 2012 · High Court

956

citing judgments

Appellate authorities can entertain fresh claims or revised computations of income made by an assessee, even if these were not submitted through a revised return of income.

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows

73 Taxmann.com 241 · 2016 · High Court

791

citing judgments

A penalty notice under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty is for concealment of income or for furnishing incorrect particulars of income.

Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan

263 ITR 706 · 2003 · Supreme Court

691

citing judgments

A citizen is free to carry on business within the law, and mere tax planning without a motive to evade taxes through colorable devices is not frowned upon. The liability to taxation, for the purpose of tax treaty application, is a legal situation, not the fiscal fact of actual payment.

(i) CIT v. Merchem Ltd.

378 ITR 443 · 2015 · High Court

631

citing judgments

Belated remittance of employees' contribution to ESI and PF, even if deposited before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1), is not allowed as a deduction. This disallowance falls under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x), as Section 43B applies only to employer's contributions.

Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT

384 ITR 490 · 2016 · High Court

631

citing judgments

Co-operative banks are not fundamentally different from co-operative societies, entitling them to claim deductions under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, including for interest income treated as business income.

CIT v. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd.

368 ITR 749 · 2014 · High Court

609

citing judgments

Deduction for employees' contributions to PF and ESIC is allowable under Section 43B if paid before the due date for filing the return under Section 139(1); similarly, delayed deposits of employers' contributions to ESIC and PF are also allowable.

Judgments on Section 139(1)

C & C Constructions Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1544/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita Nos. 1543 & 1544/Del/2022 (Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15) C & C Constructions Ltd. Vs. Dcit 74, Hemkunt Colony, Central Circle – 19 New Delhi – 110 048 New Delhi Pan No. Aaacc 4543 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sibtain Raza, A.R. Revenue By Shri Javed Akhtar, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 25.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.05.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 28.04.2022 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15. 2. Before Us, At The Outset, Both The Parties Submitted That Though The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are For Two Different Assessment Years But The Facts & Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Identical Except For The Assessment Year & The

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

C & C Constructions Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1543/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2023AY 2013-14

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

Smt. Kusumben Amritlal Sanghavi, Jamnagar vs. The DCIT, Circle, Jamnagar

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 194/RJT/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 194/Rjt/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Smt. Kusumben Amritlal Dy. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Sanghavi Income Tax Vs. C/O. Kantilal & Circle-2, Jamnagar - Brothers, Grain Market, 361008 Jamnagar - 361001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afhps5412C .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri D. S. Varia, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr.D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 06/04/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 30/05/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.06.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Jamnagar (‘The Cit(A)’), Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 30.06.2017 Passed By The Learned Dcit, Circle-2, Jamnagar Under Section

For Appellant: Shri D. S. Varia, A.R

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

Suria Steeltech Private Limited (Previously Known As Tms Engineers Private Limited), Pune vs. Assessing Officer, Ward-9(4), Pune

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 547/PUN/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Shashank Deogadkar

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Sathyanarayanan Padmanabhan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 436/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.436/Chny/2023 (िनधा1रणवष1 / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Sathyanarayanan Padmanabhan Acit बनाम/ F2, B Block, Doshi Trinity Park Chennai. 178, Vengai Vasal Main Road, Vs. Santhosapuram, Chennai-600 073. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Akspp-5380-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ("#थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Pmn.Bhagavath Krishnan (Advocate) – Ld.Ar "#थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri P.Sajit Kumar (Jcit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-05-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29-05-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee In Captioned Appeal Is Denial Of Foreign Tax Credit For Rs.1,86,365/-. The Same Has Been Denied On The Ground That Form 67 As Required Under Rule 128(9) Was Not Furnished Along With Return Of Income U/S 139(1). The Registry Has Noted Minor Delay Of 5 Days In The Appeal Which Stand Condoned Considering The Period Of Delay.

For Appellant: Shri PMN.Bhagavath KrishnanFor Respondent: Shri P.Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 139(1)

Jayaraj Charles, Pudukottai vs. Income Tax Officer, -Ward-1, Pudukottai

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 434/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. N.V.Lakshmi (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld.DR

Section 139(1)Section 271BSection 44A

Ed281 Kuttaithayirpalayam Milk Producers Cooperative Society, Erode vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Erode

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 430/CHNY/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.429 & 430/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-2020 Ed281 Kuttaithairpalayam Milk Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Producers Co-Operative Society, Ward 1(1), Vadakkuthairpalayam Post, Chithode Erode. Via, Erode Taluk, Tamil Nadu 638 102. [Pan:Aaaae6749D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.05.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi Both Dated 03.02.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Has Filed The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018-19 On 30.03.2019 Admitting Nil Income After Claiming Deduction Under Section 80P Of The Income Tax Act

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

Ed281 Kuttaithayirpalayam Milk Producers Cooperative Society, Erode vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Erode

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 429/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

ITO(E), Ward- 1(3), New Delhi vs. Centre for Health and Social Justice, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1308/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M.Balaganeshassessment Year: 2019-20 Ito (E), Ward-1(3), New Delhi Centre For Health & Social Justice, G-Block, Saket, New Delhi 110017 Vs. Pan Aaatc 7866 L

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Chaturvedi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr.DR

Section 11

Maruti Clean Coal and Power Ltd., Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

ITA 91/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 91/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Maruti Clean Coal & Power Limited Ward No. 42, Building No.14, Civil Lines Near Income Tax Colony Raipur(C.G.) Pan : Aadcm4810C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur-1 (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri V.K.Singh, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

Shri Bhavesh Bhuva, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(3)(1), Surat

In the result, ground No. 2(i) of the appeal is allowed

ITA 235/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.235/Srt/2022 (Ay 2012-13) (Hearing In Physical Court) Bhavesh Bhuva Income Tax Officer, C-51, Khodiyar Nagar Ward-3(3)(1), Surat, Income Vs Society, Nr. Chikoo Tax Office, Aaykar Bhavan, Wadi, Nana Varachha, Anavil Business Centre, Surat-395006 Hazira Road, Adajan, Pan No: Antpb 8989 P Surat-395007 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Ms. Chaitali Shah, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 25.05.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 29.05.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 10.06.2022 For Assessment Year 2012-13, Which In Turn Arises From The Addition Made By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Surat / Assessing Officer In Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 26.11.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- Bhavesh Bhuva “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Has Grossly Erred In Passing The Impugned Appellate Order On An Ex-Parte Basis, By Erroneously Holding That The Appellant Is Not Interested In Pursuing The Appeal, When The Fact Is That The Appellant Has Made Detailed Submissions In Form No.35 Itself, Which Ought To Have Been Considered By The Learned Cit(A), Nfac While Passing The Impugned Order. Therefore, The Appellate Order Of The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Being Passed On An Ex-Parte Basis, Needs To Be Quashed As Being Erroneous, Illegal & Bad-In-Law.

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 69

M/S. Shivamm Industries, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Dismissed

ITA 393/PUN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.393/Pun/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S.Shivamm Industries, The Dy.Commissioner Of Plot 76, Arihant Heights, Sector Vs Income Tax, Circle-8, No.25, Pradhikaran Nigdi, Pune. Pune – 411044. Pan: Aaefs 0458 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 15/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26/05/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee I.E. Shivamm Industries For A.Y. 2013-14 Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Of Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Dated 21.03.2023 Emanating From Assessing Officer’S Order Under Section 154 Of The Act Dated 22.03.2021. The Ground Of Appeal Are As Under : “1. The Order Dated 21/03/2023 Bearing No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1051048828[L] Passed Under Section 250 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 By The Hon’Ble Cit[Appeals], National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Is Excessive, M/S.Shivamm Industries [A]

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 36

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Tracks & Towers Infratech Private Limited(Part IX), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1515/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal

Section 133ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80I

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Tracks & Towers Infratech Private Limited(Part IX), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1514/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal

Section 133ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80I

S N Thakur, Bangalore vs. The Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 332/BANG/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Smt. Sumangala Ranga, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 131Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Rasik Nemchand Pethad, Thane vs. DCIT, CC-1, Thane

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

ITA 66/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Rasik Nemchand Pethad Dcit, Cc-1 Gala No.3, Nausibai Compound, Thane Vs. Near Sarkari Bunglow, Chitalsar Manpada, Thane-400 610 Pan/Gir No. Aanpp 1791 J (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Shashank Mehta Revenue By : Smt. Mahita Nair Date Of Hearing : 02.03.2023 : 24.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Shashank MehtaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271BSection 44A

Mr. Narayana Nippanin Rao, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1923/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadalenarayana Nippanirao, Vs. Dcit, Cpc 22 Revati Nofra, Near Rc Bangalore Church, Colaba, Karnataka - 560500 Mumbai – 400005. Pan/Gir No. : Aadpr8507L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Narayana Rao.Ar Respondent By : Ms.Naina K. Kumar.Dr Date Of Hearing 20.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Mr.Narayana Rao.ARFor Respondent: Ms.Naina K. Kumar.DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

S.M.S Exports, Delhi vs. CIT-24 New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1838/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmas.M.S Exports Vs. Cit-24 C-174, Okhla Industrial New Delhi Area Phase-1, New Delhi-110 020 Pan No. Aabfs 9700 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By -None- Revenue By Shri Kumar Parnav, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.05.2023

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Kishorepur Paschimanchal S K U S Limited, Hooghly vs. I.T.O., Ward - 23(1), Hooghly

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 716/KOL/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 716/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Kishorepur Paschimanchal Skus Limited Income Tax Officer, Bandipur, Malay Bandipur Ward-23(1), Hooghly Vs B.O. Bandipur Hooghly - 712617 [Pan : Aacak9370Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/05/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 13/10/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Denial Of Benefit Of Section 80P To The Tune Of Rs. 6,32,082/- By A.O. (Cpc) On The Ground Of Belated Filing Of Return Of Income. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Appreciated That The Delay In Filing Of Return Of Income Was Occasioned Due To Reasons Beyond The Control Of The Assessee. 3. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Appreciated That The Denial Of Benefit U/S 80P On Account Of Delay In Filing Return Of Income Was Beyond The Jurisdiction Of The A.O. (Cpc) While Exercising Power Of Processing Return Of Income U/S 143(1).” 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Received An Intimation From Cpc, Bangalore U/S 143(1) Of The Act Making An Adjustment In Returned Income By Which Cpc Did Not Grant Deduction U/S 80P Of The Act At Rs. 6,32,082/- Claimed By

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(1)(ii)Section 250Section 80P

Jagannath Karbarh Deshapran Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd., Egra, Purba Medinipur vs. I.T.O., Ward - 27(4), Haldia

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 667/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 667/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jagannath Karbarh Deshapran Skus Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Jagannath Karbarh Ward-27(4), Haldia Vs Pirijkhanbarh Egra Purba Medinipur -721422 [Pan : Aacaj0089M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/05/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 22/09/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Action Of The A.O. (Cpc) In Denying Deduction U/S Section 80P To The Tune Of Rs. 15,31,190/- For Belated Filing Of The Return Of Income. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Considered That The Reason For Belated Filing Of Return Of Income Was Beyond The Control Of The Society. 3. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Considered That The Issue Was Debatable & The Adjustment U/S 143(1) Was Not Permissible In Law.” 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Received An Intimation From Cpc, Bangalore U/S 143(1) Of The Act Making An Adjustment In Returned Income By Which Cpc Did Not Grant Deduction U/S 80P Of The Act At Rs. 15,31,190/- Claimed

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(1)(ii)Section 250Section 80P