546 SULUR PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO-OP CREDIT SOCIRTY,COIMBATORE V. INCOME TAX OFFICER NON CORP WARD 4(1), COIMBATORE

SA 79/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves the 546 Sulur Primary Agriculture Co-operative Credit Society, which appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that denied them deductions under Section 80P for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The society argued that the belated filing of their return should not disqualify them from the deductions, citing that the relevant provisions under Section 143(1)(a)(ii) for disallowing claims due to non-filing within the due date were only introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, after the assessment year in question. However, the Tribunal relied on the precedent set by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in a similar case, which held that deductions under Section 80P are admissible only if the return is filed within the due date.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 773069 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Stay Application
• Pronouncement Date: 26-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 28-08-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Veerapampalayam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. Vs DCIT (138 taxmann.com 571) (Mad), Thachanattukara Farmers Producer Company Ltd. Vs ITO, Wad-1, Palakkad, Premier Cooperative Credit Vs CIT(A)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Application of stay
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘ए’ \u0010ा यपीठ चे\u0015ई म\u0018। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2159/Chny/2025 (Assessment Year 2018-19) 546 Sulur Primary Agriculture Co- operative Credit Society, 61, Town Corporation Street, Sulur S.O. Rajkamal tex, Coimbatore-641402 (Tamil Nadu) PAN No. AAAAZ 0534 D Vs. I.T.O., Non-corp Ward 4(1), 67A Race Course Road, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue S.A. 79/Chny/2025 (Arising out of ITA No. 2159/Chny/2025) (Assessment Year 2018-19) 546 Sulur Primary Agriculture Co- operative Credit Society, 61, Town Corporation Street, Sulur S.O. Rajkamal tex, Coimbatore-641402 (Tamil Nadu) PAN No. AAAAZ 0534 D Vs. I.T.O., Non-corp Ward 4(1), 67A Race Course Road, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee represented by Shri Karuanantham, Advocate (virtual) Department represented by Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, JCIT. Date of hearing 16/09/2025 Date of pronouncement 26/09/2025 PER: RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)/learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, the ld. CIT(A)] dated 03/07/2025 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19 as per ground of appeal on record. The assessee has also filed Stay application arising out of the present appeal. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA 2159/Chny/2025 546 Sulur Primary Agriculture Co-Op Credit Society Vs ITO 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee is a cooperative society registered under Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. The assessee is a primary agricultural Co-operative society and credit society formed with an objection of providing credit facilities to its members, who are primarily agriculturist, to improve their economic conditions, for this purpose of providing credit facilities to its members, the assessee collects deposits from its members, borrow funds from bank, lends to farmers and its members provide group loans to self-help groups and collects the repayments of jewel loan, agricultural loans and all other loans etc. The assessee-society also runs ration shops and supply groceries to the general public at subsidized rate and it also distributes Pongal bonus etc. However, it was found by the Assessing Officer that the assessee had not filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2018-19, therefore, a show cause notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) was issued on 21/02/2022 by the Assessing Officer after getting approval of the ld. PCIT, Coimbatore-1. Since there was no response from the assessee, an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act was passed on 31/03/2022 with the approval of ld. PCIT, Coimbatore-1 and finally, a notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 05/04/2022 was issued to the assessee. In response to the notice issued under Section 148, the assessee filed its return of income on 02/05/2022 declaring income of Rs. ‘NIL’ after claiming deduction under Section 80P(2)(a) of the Act amounting to Rs. 27,502/-, under Section 80P(2)(c)(i) of the Act amounting to Rs. 2/- and under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act amounting to Rs. 28,44,970/- totaling Rs. 28,72,474/-. The Assessing Officer, however, denied the Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA 2159/Chny/2025 546 Sulur Primary Agriculture Co-Op Credit Society Vs ITO said deduction claimed under Section 80AC and under Section 80P of the Act on the ground that the return of income was not filed within stipulated time period, therefore, the assessment order under Section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 19/01/2024 was passed and the income of the cooperative society was assessed at Rs. 28,72,474/-. 3. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide the impugned order, confirmed the order passed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that return was not filed under Section 139(1) and the return filed under Section 148 of the Act was a belated return and, therefore, the assessee is not eligible to get deduction under Section 80AC and 80P of the Act. 4. Further aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the present appeal has been filed by the assessee before this Tribunal. 5. During the appellate proceedings before us, it was submitted by the ld. AR that it was beyond the scope of Section 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. It was submitted that power to disallow a claim under Chapter VI-A (including Section 80P) for non- filing of return within the due date under Section 139(1) of the Act was introduced into Section 143(1)(a) specifically through sub-clause (v) by the Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. April,1, 2021. Therefore, this provision is not applicable for the assessment year under consideration. Further, it was submitted that the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that prior to the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, the scope of adjustments under Section 143(1)(a) was limited to arithmetical errors, incorrect claims apparent from Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA 2159/Chny/2025 546 Sulur Primary Agriculture Co-Op Credit Society Vs ITO information in the return (as defined in the explanation), and disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report but not taken into account. The belated filing of return, in itself, did not constitute an “incorrect claim” apparent from the return for the purpose of disallowance under Section 143(1)(a)(ii) for the relevant assessment year. The ld. AR of the assessee further submitted that placing reliance by the lower authorities of the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Veerapampalayam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. Vs DCIT (138 taxmann.com 571) (Mad) is misplaced and the said case is distinguishable on facts and law. It was further submitted that the Assessing Officer should have followed the principles laid down in the cases supporting the assessee’s contention, such as Thachanattukara Farmers Producer Company Ltd. Vs ITO, Wad-1, Palakkad and Premier Cooperative Credit Vs CIT(A), the principles regarding Section 80P deduction and 143(1) adjustments are relevant. Finally, the ld. AR submitted that since the assessee has fulfilled all the conditions for claiming deduction under Section 80P of the Act, the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) should have allowed the same. 6. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR supported the order of the ld. CIT(A) and placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Veerapampalayam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. Vs DCIT (Supra) wherein the Hon’ble Madras High Court has dealt with identical issue and held that the deduction under Section 80P of the Act is admissible only if the return of income is filed within the prescribed due date and such adjustments fall within the scope of Section 143(1)(a) of the Act. Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA 2159/Chny/2025 546 Sulur Primary Agriculture Co-Op Credit Society Vs ITO 7. We have considered the rival submissions and we do not find any reason to deviate from the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Veerapampalayam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. Vs DCIT (Supra) wherein it has already been held that for claiming of deduction under Section 80P, the return of income should have been filed within the stipulated due date. In the present case, the assessee-society has filed its return of income after the stipulated time. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 8. Now we take S.A. No. 79/Chny/2025. Since the quantum appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 2159/Chny/2025 for the A.Y. 2018-19 is dismissed, the said Stay application becomes infructuous and also dismissed. 9. In the result, the appeal and the Stay application of the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 26/09/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (SS VISWANETHRA RAVI) (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Chennai, Dated: 26/09/2025 *Ranjan Copy to: 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. CIT 4. DR 5. Guard File By order Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Chennai Printed from counselvise.com "