INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GUDIWADA V. NO H 1043 BHUJABALAPATNAM PRIMARY AGRICULTURE COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD, KRISHNA DIST

MA 40/VIZ/2025

AI Insights

The case involves the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gudiwada as the appellant and M/s. No H1043 Bhujabalpatnam Primary Agriculture Co-operative Society Limited as the respondent. The Revenue filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking recall of the Tribunal's order which allowed the assessee's appeal regarding the deduction claimed under Section 80P for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The Tribunal had previously set aside the assessment order and directed the deletion of the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal did not consider a binding judgment of the Kerala High Court which was crucial for the decision. However, the Tribunal found that the judgment had been considered and that the application essentially sought a review of the decision, which is not permissible under Section 254(2).

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 832127 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 21-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 25-11-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Nileshwar Range Kallu Chethu Vyavasaya Thozhilali Sahakarana Sangham Vs. CIT
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 144; 142(1)

Judgement Text

"1 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, विशाखापटणम पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Visakhapatnam Bench श्री मंजूनाथ जी, माननीय लेखा सदस्य एवं श्री रवीश सूद, माननीय न्याययक सदस्य SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. No.40/Viz/2025 आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.426/Viz/2025) (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2017-18) The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gudiwada. Vs. M/s. No H1043 Bhujabalpatnam Primary Agriculture Co-operative Society Limited, Gudiwada. PAN : AADAN1163F. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रयतयनयित्व/ Assessee Represented by : Shri K. Siva Kumar, CA (Appeared through Hybrid Mode) राजस्व का प्रयतयनयित्व/ Department Represented by : Dr. Aparna Villuri Sr.A.R. सुनवाई समाप्त होने की यतयथ/ Date of Conclusion of Hearing : 19.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/ Date of Pronouncement : 21.01.2026 O R D E R प्रयत मंजूनाथ जी./PER MANJUNATHA G. A.M. The Revenue has filed the present Miscellaneous Application (in short, ‘M.A.’) under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in Printed from counselvise.com M.A.No.40/Viz/2025 in ITA No.426/Viz/2025 2 short, ‘the Act’) seeking recall of the order passed by the Tribunal in ITA No.426/Viz/2025 dated 17.10.2025 pertaining to the A.Y. 2017- 18. 2. The relevant contents of the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue are reproduced as under : “……. 4.1. The Hon'ble ITAT quashed the assessment order passed by the A.O. and the decision of Ld. CIT(A), by setting aside the order and directed the A.O. to delete the addition, allowing the deduction claimed by the assessee-society for the A.Y. 2017-18. 4.2. In this case, the assessee-society is a primary agricultural cooperative society, failed to furnish its return of income within the due date prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act for the A.Y. 2017-18. A notice u/s 142(1) dated 24.11.2017 was issued as the assessee-society had deposited cash of Rs.57,49,000/- during the demonetization period. The assessee failed to comply. Subsequently, a notice u/s 144 of the Act was issued on 13.06.2019. In response, the assessee submitted financial documents but not a valid return of income. The A.O. observed that the assessee was claiming a deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) without a valid return. A show-cause notice was issued on 21.11.2019. Only thereafter, on 15.12.2019, the assessee filed belated return of income, admitting income of Rs. NIL after claiming the deduction of Rs.12,71,701/- u/s 80P of the Act. The A.O., in the assessment order, held that the return filed belatedly was invalid and non-est in law. Relying on the provisions of Section 80A(5) of the Act, the A.O. denied the deduction and made an addition of Rs.12,71,701/- to the total income. The assessee-society filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) arguing that the return filed is valid for claiming the deduction. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the A.O.'s order, correctly stating that the deduction was not claimed in a return filed by the due date u/s 139(1), a condition which goes to the root of the claim. The assessee filed further appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT. The Hon'ble ITAT vide the impugned order allowed the assessee's appeal. The Tribunal took the view that for the A.Y. 2017-18, the amended provisions of Section 80A(5) and 80AC were not applicable and thus, the only condition was that the deduction be claimed in a return filed before the assessment was completed. 4.3. It is submitted that the cornerstone of the written submissions made by the learned Sr. AR before the Hon'ble ITAT was the binding judgment of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in Nileshwar Range Kallu Chethu Vyavasaya Thozhilali Sahakarana Sangham Vs. CIT (2023) 459 ITR 730 / 152 taxmann.com 347 / 333 CTR 655 (Ker) (HC). The submissions extensively referred to and relied upon the operative part of the said judgment, which lays down the legal position applicable to the assessment years prior to 01.04.2018, such as the impugned A.Y. 2017-18. For emphasis, the relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced below: Printed from counselvise.com M.A.No.40/Viz/2025 in ITA No.426/Viz/2025 3 “A reading of Section 80A(5) and Section 80AC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as they stood prior to 1st April, 2018, would reveal that the statutory scheme under the Act was to admit only such claims for deduction u/s 80P of the Act as were made by the assessee in a return of income filed by them. That return could be u/s 139(1), (4), 142(1) or 148 and to be valid, had to be filed within the due date contemplated under those provisions. U/s 80A(5), the claim for deduction u/s 80P could be made by an assessee in a return filed within the time prescribed for filing such returns under any of the above provisions.” It was further highlighted that the Hon'ble High Court categorically held that returns filed after the due dates prescribed under these sections “were non-est and could not have been acted upon by the A.O. even though they were filed before the completion of assessment.” It is submitted that the above written submissions made by the learned Sr. AR do not appear to have been considered by the Hon'ble Tribunal, since no reference thereto is found in its order dated 17.10.2025. PRAYER: In view of the foregoing, Miscellaneous Application filed in the case of M/s. No. H1043 Bhujabalapatnam Primary Agriculture Co-Operative Society Limited, Bhujabalapatnam Village (PAN: AADANI163F) for the A.Y. 2017-18 with the prior approval of the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Vijayawada may kindly be admitted. It is prayed that the Hon'ble ITAT may be pleased to recall its order in ITA No. 426/Viz/2025 dated 17.10.2025 for the A.Y. 2017-18 and readjudicate the matter afresh in light of the above binding judicial pronouncement.4.1.The Hon'ble ITAT quashed the assessment order passed by the AO and the decision of ld.ClT(A), by setting aside the order and directed the AO to delete the addition, allowing the deduction claimed by the assessee- society for the asst year 2017-18 and readjudicate the matter afresh in light of the above binding judicial pronouncement.” 3. The learned Sr. A.R. for the Revenue, Dr. Aparna Villuri, submitted that, the order passed by the Tribunal in ITA No.426/Viz/2025 dated 17.10.2025 suffers from a mistake apparent from the record inasmuch as the binding judgment of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in Nileshwar Range Kallu Chethu Vyavasaya Thozhilali Sahakarana Sangham Vs. CIT (2023) 459 ITR 730 (Ker), which was specifically relied upon in the written submissions, has not been considered in the impugned order. She submitted that, the said Printed from counselvise.com M.A.No.40/Viz/2025 in ITA No.426/Viz/2025 4 judgment lays down the legal position applicable to assessment years prior to 01.04.2018 and therefore, the order of the Tribunal requires to be recalled under Section 254(2) of the Act. 4. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri K. Siva Ram Kumar, C.A. on the other hand, opposed the Miscellaneous Application and submitted that, the Tribunal has duly examined the legal position governing the allowability of deduction under Section 80P for A.Y. 2017-18 and has taken a conscious view after considering the statutory provisions as applicable to the said year. He submitted that, mere non-mentioning of a particular judgment in the order does not mean that, it was not considered, and in any event, the Revenue is only seeking a review of the order, which is impermissible under Section 254(2) of the Act. 5. We have heard both the parties and considered the contents of the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue. We find that, the Tribunal, while passing the impugned order dated 17.10.2025, has examined the applicability of Sections 80A(5) and 80AC to A.Y. 2017- 18 and has recorded a finding that, the amended provisions were not applicable to the said assessment year and that, the deduction could not be denied merely on the ground that, the return was filed belatedly before completion of assessment. The legal position Printed from counselvise.com M.A.No.40/Viz/2025 in ITA No.426/Viz/2025 5 emanating from the judgment of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court relied upon by the Revenue was also considered by the Bench while arriving at the said conclusion, though the same was not specifically quoted in the order. Even otherwise, we are of the considered view that, mere non-reference to a particular judicial precedent in the order, when the issue has already been examined on merits, does not constitute a mistake apparent from the record within the meaning of Section 254(2) of the Act. The Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue, in effect, seeks a review and re-appreciation of the issue already decided by the Tribunal, which is impermissible in proceedings under Section 254(2) of the Act. Therefore, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue deserves to be dismissed. 7. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 21st January, 2026. Sd/- (श्री रवीश सूद) (RAVISH SOOD) न्यधनयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER Sd/- (मंजूनाथ जी) (MANJUNATHA G.) लेखध सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 21 .01.2026. TYNM/sps Printed from counselvise.com M.A.No.40/Viz/2025 in ITA No.426/Viz/2025 6 आदेशकी प्रयतयलयि अग्रेयषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. यनिााररती/The Assessee : No H1043 Bhujabalpatnam Primary Agriculture Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. D.No.1-26, Bhujabalapatnam Village, Kaikaluru Mandal – 521340, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh. 2. राजस्व/ The Revenue : The Income Tax Officer, Ward –1, Gudiwada. 3. The Principal CIT, Vijayawada. 4. यवभागीयप्रयतयनयि, आयकर अिीलीय अयिकरण, हैदराबाद / DR, ITAT, Visakhapatnam. 5. गार्ाफ़ाईल / Guard file आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Hyderabad Printed from counselvise.com "