THOLUR PACCS,SALEM V. ITO, WARD-1(6), SALEM

ITA 1923/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves the Tholur Primary Agricultural Co-op. Credit Society, which appealed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that upheld the disallowance of a deduction claimed under section 80P of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The disallowance was initially made by the Assessing Officer on the grounds that the society did not file its return within the due date as required by section 80AC of the Act. The society argued that the delay in filing was condoned by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore under section 119(2)(b) of the Act, which the CIT(A) had overlooked. The Tribunal found merit in the society's argument and allowed the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 781447 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 07-07-2025
• Other Referred Cases: AA 520 Veerappampalayam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. v. DCIT [2022] 138 taxmann.com 571 (Mad)
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R. ANITHA
• Assessee Lawyers: T.VASUDEVAN
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Co-operative Credit Society
• Section: 143(3); 119(2)(b)

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ \u0011ा यपीठ, चे\u0016ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI \u0019ी मनु क ुमा र िग र, \u0011ा ियक सद एवं \u0019ी जगदीश, लेखा सद क े सम' BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1923/Chny/2025 िनधा 9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2018-19 Tholur Primary Agricultural Co-op. Credit Society, No.106, Tholur Pagalpatti Post, Omalur Taluk, Salem District – 636 304. PAN: AACAT 0380M Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(6), Salem. (अपीलाथ\u0007/Appellant) (\b यथ\u0007/Respondent) अपीलाथF की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate HIथF की ओर से /Respondent by : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 25.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 29.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19 arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 02.06.2025 in the matter of assessment framed by the Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Income-tax Act,1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) on 23.02.2021. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1923/Chny/2025 Tholur PACCS :- 2 -: 2. The assessee is a primary agricultural co-operative credit society registered under Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and has filled return of income at Nil after claiming deduction u/s 80P of the Act. The A.O has disallowed the claim of deduction u/s.80P of the Act, in the order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act as the assessee has not filled return within due date as mandated by section 80AC of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal upholding the order of A.O. 3. The Ld. Authorized Representative (A.R) of the assessee has submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly relied on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of AA 520 Veerappampalayam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. v. DCIT [2022] 138 taxmann.com 571 (Mad) and dismissed the appeal, despite the fact that Ld. CCIT, Coimbatore had already condoned the delay in filing the return. It was argued that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal when Ld. CCIT, Coimbatore passed order u/s. 119(2)(b) of the Act, and condoned the delay. The Ld. AR therefore pleased that the appeal of the assessee be allowed. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1923/Chny/2025 Tholur PACCS :- 3 -: 4. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), has relied on the orders of lower authorities. 5. We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. The A.O has disallowed the claim of deduction u/s. 80P of the Act solely on the ground that the return was not filled within the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. The assessee, however, has filed an application for condonation of delay u/s. 119(2)(b) of the Act before the CCIT, Coimbatore, and delay has been condoned. In such circumstances, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal ignoring the condonation order of Ld. CCIT. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and direct the A.O to allow the claim of deduction u/s. 80P of the Act. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 29th day of September, 2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (मनु क ुमार िग र) (Manu Kumar Giri) \u0011ाियक सद / Judicial Member (जगदीश) (Jagadish) लेखा लेखा लेखा लेखा सद\u0011य सद\u0011य सद\u0011य सद\u0011य /Accountant Member चे\u0013नई/Chennai, \u0016दनांक/Dated: 29th September, 2025. EDN/- Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1923/Chny/2025 Tholur PACCS :- 4 -: आदेश क\u0019 \bितिल प अ े षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ\u0007/Appellant 2. \b थ\u0007/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु\u000f/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय \bितिनिध/DR 5. गाड\u0018 फाईल/GF Printed from counselvise.com "