BANK OF INDIA KARMACHARI SAHAKARI PATASANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE V. CPC, BENGALURU

ITA 186/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves the Bank of India Karmachari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, a cooperative society, which appealed against the order of the CIT(A) denying them a deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2022-23. The primary issue was the belated filing of their income tax return, which was filed on 20.12.2022, after the extended due date of 07.11.2022. The Tribunal noted that the return was not filed within the statutory time limit and thus, under Section 80AC read with Section 143(1)(a) of the Act, the deduction claimed was rightly disallowed. The Tribunal also considered the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, which was accepted based on the 'reasonable cause' shown by the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 705810 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Assessment Year: 2022-2023
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 107
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S. SADANANDA SINGH
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause
• Section: 119(2)(b)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.186/PUN/2025 Assessment Year : 2022-23 Bank of India Karmachari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, CTS 334, Flat No. 4, Erande Plaza, Near Modi Ganpati, Narayan Peth, Pune – 411 002 Maharashtra PAN: AAAAB3938M Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3), Pune Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER This appeal filed at the instance of assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year 2022-23 is directed against the order dated 11.03.2024 of ADDL/JCIT(A)-2, Coimbatore passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of the Intimation Order dated 26.10.2023 passed u/s.143(1) of the Act.] Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri S.Sadananda Singh, JCIT Date of hearing : 19.06.2025 Date of pronouncement : 30.06.2025 ITA No.186/PUN/2025 Bank of India Karmachari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit 2 2. Registry has informed that there is delay of 236 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Application for condonation of delay has been filed stating as follows: “On 15.05.2024 I received the order of Commissioner (Appeals) Faceless, in my case for assessment year 2022-2023. Being Society we called meeting of board of directors, and decided to prefer the appeal. We further notice as follows : From the above chart, we notice sufficient time for opportunity of being heard is not given to us. So Matter is discussed in the 2-3 meeting of Bod and then we decided to prefer the appeal in ITAT. On Being aggrieved by the said order I requested my auditors Rameshwar Laxman Nehere Partner of M/s C A N J and Company, Chartered Accountants, to prefer an appeal to the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal. They undertook to do the needful soon after the rush of work of filing returns of income by 31.12.2024 was over. My affidavit detailing the aforesaid facts and These may kindly be placed before the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal for condonation of the delay in submission of the appeal.” 3. After hearing ld. Departmental Representative and considering the condonation application filed by the assessee stating the reasons which led to delay and also placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 107) I find that due to ‘reasonable cause’ assessee failed to file the appeal within the time limit specified under the Act. I therefore condone the delay of ITA No.186/PUN/2025 Bank of India Karmachari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit 3 236 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. When the appeal called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. In the past also, assessee failed to appear on two occasions. I therefore proceed to adjudicate the appeal with the assistance of ld. Departmental Representative and available material on record. 5. Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supporting the order of ld.CIT(A). He stated that the assessee has not furnished the return of income within the statutory time limit provided u/s.139(1) of the Act and therefore as per section 80AC of the Act assessee cannot claim deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. 6. I have heard the ld. Departmental Representative and perused the record placed before me. I observe that the assessee is a Cooperative Society and due date of filing the return of income for A.Y. 2022-23 was 31.10.2022 which was further extended to 07.11.2022. Assessee has filed the return of income on 20.12.2022 and admittedly it is a belated return not filed u/s.139(1) of the Act. In this return, ITA No.186/PUN/2025 Bank of India Karmachari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit 4 assessee has claimed deduction u/s.80P of the Act at Rs.30,00,457/-. On going through the provisions of section 80AC of the Act with the conjoint reading of section 143(1)(a) of the Act I note that for the year under appeal CPC is well within its jurisdiction to make prima-facie adjustment disallowing the deduction claimed under Chapter VIA of the Act if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified u/s.139(1) of the Act. Now under the given situation if the delay in filing of the return was for ‘reasonable cause’ then for such condonation of delay assessee has to approach the authorities mentioned in section 119(2)(b) of the Act. In the instant case, no such application for condonation of delay seems to have been filed as there is no such reference in the impugned order. Under these given facts and circumstances, section 80AC of the Act is rightly invoked as the return of income has not been filed within the time limit provided u/s.139(1) of the Act. Therefore, assessee’s claim of deduction u/s.80P of the Act has rightly been denied by the CPC. Thus, no interference is called for in the finding of ld.CIT(A). Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed. ITA No.186/PUN/2025 Bank of India Karmachari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit 5 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on this 30th day of June, 2025. Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; \u0001दनांक / Dated : 30th June, 2025. Satish आदेश क\u0002 \u0003ितिलिप अ ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant. 2. \u000eयथ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” ब\u0014च, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 5. गाड\u0004 फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune "