Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Rajkot
Income Tax Officer, Rajkot vs Shree Jamkandorna Taluka Coop. Sales ... on 7 April, 2026
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT
BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND
DR. DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 58/RJT/2024
Assessment Year: (2018-19)
Shri Jamkandorna Taluka Co-op Sales Income Tax Officer, Ward-
Purchase Union Ltd. Vs. 2(1)(2),
Kalavad Road, Jamkandorna, 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Race
st
C/o. Sarda & Sarda, CAs, 1 Floor, Course Ring Road, Rajkot.
"Sakar", Dr. Radhakrishnan Road,
Opp. Rajkumar College, Rajkot-360001
ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAAAS2296M
(Appellant) (Respondent)
CO No. 02/RJT/2025
Assessment Year: (2018-19)
Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), Shri Jamkandorna Taluka Co-op Sales
"Aayakar Bhavan", 4th Floor, 403, Vs.Purchase Union Ltd.
Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot. Shree Jamkandorna Taluka Coop Sales &
Purchase Union Ltd., Kalavad Road,
Jamkandorna, Rajkot, Gujarat
ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAAAS2296M
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. AR
Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. CIT(DR)
Date of Hearing : 26/02/2026
Date of Pronouncement : 07/04/2026
आदे श / ORDER
Per, Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha, JM:
Captioned two appeals filed by the department, pertaining to Assessment Years (AYs) 2018-19, are directed against the separate orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), in short "the Ld. CIT(A)"], dated 04.12.2023, which in turn arise out of separate assessment orders passed by ITA No. 02/Rjt/2025 & 58/RJT/2024 Dff ITO v. Shri Jamkandorna Taluka Assessing Officer (in short 'the AO") u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").
2. We note that in this case department has filed CO No.02/Rjt/2025 on 12.01.2025 with the following grounds, are as under:
"1) The Ld. AO erred in law as well as on facts in not allowing deduction u/s 80P. The same needs to be allowed.
2) The Ld. AO erred in law as well as on facts in calculating net tax liability without giving deduction u/s 80P. The same needs cancellation.
3) The Id. AO erred in law as well as on facts in charging interest u/s 234A without giving deduction u/s 80P. The same needs cancellation.
4) The Ld. AO erred in law as well as on facts in charging interest 234B without giving deduction u/s 80P. The same needs cancellation.
5) The Ld. AO erred in law as well as on facts in charging interest u/s 234C without giving deduction u/s 80P. The same needs cancellation.
6) The Ld. AO erred in law as well as on facts in charging fees u/s 234F without giving deduction u/s 80P. The same needs cancellation.
7) The Ld. AO erred in law as well as on facts in not allowing deduction u/s 80P.
Without cogent reason or cogent material brought on record. The same needs cancellation.
8) The Ld AO erred in law as well as on facts in not allowing deduction u/s 80P. Without giving proper opportunity and adequately considering the matter. The same needs cancellation.
9) The Ld. AO erred in law as well as on facts in calculating not allowing deduction u/s 80P based on irrelevant consideration. The same needs cancellation.
10) The Ld. AO erred in law as well as on facts in not allowing deduction u/s 80P based on presumption and surmises. The same needs cancellation.
11) Taking into consideration legal, statutory, factual and administrative aspects no disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80P as made ought to have been made. The same needs cancellation.
12) The Ld. AO erred in law as well as on facts in not giving due deductions while issuing intimation u/s 143(1). The same needs to be allowed.
13) The Ld. AO erred in law as well as on facts in not giving due exemption while issuing intimation u/s 143(1). The same needs to be allowed.
14) Without prejudice, the intimation u/s 143(1) being illegal void, bad in law and against statutory provisions, needs annulment.
Page 2 of 5 ITA No. 02/Rjt/2025 & 58/RJT/2024Dff ITO v. Shri Jamkandorna Taluka
15) Without prejudice, the change of status and determination of tax liability as made by the Ld. AO are also bad in law. The same deserves annulment.
16. Without prejudice, no reasonable opportunity has been given by the Ld. AO while issuing intimation u/s 143(1). The same needs annulment.
17. Without prejudice, there being no legal service of the notice of hearing, issued and therefore the intimation as made u/s 143(1) needs annulment.
18. The appellant craves leave to add/alter/amend and/or substitute any or all grounds of appeal before the actual hearing takes place."
3. Accordingly, the CO No.02/2025 remain pending, the department has filed written submission of CO. No.02/2025 on dt. 25.02.2026, whereby it was brought to notice that:
1.5 The Honble ITAT Ahmedabad Bench in the case of The Parabada co-op milk producers society limited vs ITO ward 1 Himatnagar in ITA No 128/AHD/2023 has held that after the amendment to section 80AC, deduction under section 80P is allowable only if the return of income is filed within the due date prescribed under section 139(1). The Tribunal categorically observed that filing of return under section 139(4) or in response to notice under section 148 does not cure the defect of delay for the purpose of section 80AC. Copy of judgement attached.
1.6 Similarly, the Honble ITAT Bangalore Bench in the case of Sri Sowrabha Mahila Pattina Sahakara vs ITO Tiptur order dated February 2026 has upheld the disallowance of deduction under section 80P where the return was not filed within the due date prescribed under section 139(1), holding that section 80AC(ii) makes timely filing mandatory. Copy of the judgment attached.
1.7 The language of section 80AC is clear and unambiguous. It uses the expression no deduction shall be allowed unless the return is furnished on or before the due date specified under section 139(1). The provision is mandatory in nature and leaves no discretion with the Assessing Officer or the appellate authorities once the statutory condition is not fulfilled.
1.8 In the present case, the assessee has not filed the return within the due date prescribed under section 139(1). Therefore, in view of the express statutory bar under section 80AC read with section 80P, the deduction is not legally admissible. 1.9 It is respectfully submitted that the statutory condition being mandatory, the claim of deduction under section 80P is liable to be rejected on this ground alone, without entering into the merits of eligibility.Page 3 of 5 ITA No. 02/Rjt/2025 & 58/RJT/2024
Dff ITO v. Shri Jamkandorna Taluka
4. During the course of hearing, it was noted that the main matter i.e., ITA No. 58/Rjt/2024 was declared on 20.05.2025, with following observation:
"4. We have heard both the party and perused the material an all records. We note that the assessee earned business income from sale of fertilizer and other equipment amount to Rs. 12,88,603/- and Rs. 2,58,602/-. That the assessee is a co. operative society &the gross total income of the assessee is exempt u/s 80P(2)(a)(iii) & 80P(2)(a)(iv) & 80P(2)(d) of the Act.That the society is indulge in the business of the sale of fertilizer and other equipment's. That the assessee committed error in filing the return and claimed exemption in wrong clause of section 80P(2)(f) amounting to Rs. 12,88,603/- that the CPC Bangalore has process the return and disallowed the claim of exemption in the return. We note that the assessee is entitle to exemption u/s 80P(2)(a)(iii), 80P(2)(a)(iv) & 80P(2)(d) of the Act. However, it is further clarified in the earlier year. The assessee has claimed the same exemption and the same was allowed by CPC Bangalore. We note that the assessee deserves for an opportunity to correct the mistake in the return of income and explain the case before the Ld. AO (JAO). The considering the facts and circumstances the case and in the interest of justice, we are of the view that the assessee deserves for an opportunity to submit detail before the Ld. AO for verification. We set-aside the order ofLd. CIT(A) and remit matter back to the file of the Ld. AO(JAO). The Ld. AO/JAO adjudicated the matter, and considers the claim of the assessee and pass suitable order according to provision of law. In result the appeal is allowed for the statistical purpose."
5. In view of the above facts the present CO is disposed of with above terms.
6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee was already set aside to AO/JAO to consider the claim of the assessee, and Cross Objection of the revenue is also to be consider for adjudication, but the main appeal of assessee already restored to AO, hence, we dismiss this cross objection.
Order is pronounced in the open court on 07/04/2026.
Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. Arjun Lal Saini) (Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha) Accountant Member Judicial Member Rajkot Date: 07/04/2026 Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. Pr. CIT Page 4 of 5 ITA No. 02/Rjt/2025 & 58/RJT/2024 Dff ITO v. Shri Jamkandorna Taluka 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Rajkot 6. Guard File By order //True Copy// Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Rajkot Page 5 of 5