Chinnampeta Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Visakhapatnam)
Summary: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, dismissed the appeal of The Chinnampeta Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited for Assessment Year 2017-18 and upheld the disallowance of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The society had claimed deduction of its entire profit of ₹46,29,584 from activities connected with agricultural credit facilities and services to its members. However, it had not filed any return of income under Section 139(1), within the permissible belated-return period, or in response to notices issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 142(1). The Tribunal held that the mandatory condition under Section 80A(5), requiring a deduction to be claimed in a valid return of income, had not been satisfied. Consequently, the deduction could not be allowed merely because the society furnished financial statements and details of its activities during assessment proceedings.
The proceedings originated from information available with the Income Tax Department that the assessee had deposited cash of ₹3,05,000 in Krishna District Central Co-operative Bank, Chatrai, Krishna District. The society did not file a return of income, although it supplied its Trading Account, Income and Expenditure Account and Balance Sheet during assessment proceedings. It also provided particulars of the members to whom it extended credit facilities for agricultural requirements, including crop loans and fertilizer supplies. The society maintained that its income arose from transactions with members and that its profit qualified for deduction under Section 80P. The Assessing Officer, however, completed the assessment under Section 144 and disallowed the deduction because no valid return of income had been filed.
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dismissed the society’s appeal. The first appellate authority noted that the assessee had failed to furnish the required information despite five opportunities and held that the deduction could not be granted in the absence of a return containing the claim, as required by Section 80A(5). The CIT(A) also observed that the amended provisions of Section 80AC were not applicable to the assessment year in question. Before the Tribunal, there was a delay of 24 days in filing the appeal. The assessee explained through an affidavit that the delay was caused by illness arising from typhoid fever. Accepting the explanation as reasonable and sufficient cause, the Tribunal condoned the delay and proceeded to determine the substantive dispute.
The assessee relied on the coordinate-bench decision in The Chandarlapdu Large Size Cooperative Credit Society Limited v. ITO, ITA No. 11/VIZ/2025, dated 12 June 2025, where deduction under Section 80P had been allowed notwithstanding the filing of a belated return. The society contended that, for Assessment Year 2017-18, the stricter requirement introduced by the amendment to Section 80AC effective from 1 April 2018 was not applicable. The Revenue distinguished that precedent on the ground that the assessee in the present case had not filed any return at all. It relied on the Kerala High Court decision in Nileshwar Range Kallu Chethu Vyavasaya Thozhilali Sahakarana Sangham v. CIT and coordinate-bench decisions in Maruthi Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited and Narasimha Rao Palem Primary Agricultural Credit Society Limited v. ITO.
The Tribunal accepted the Revenue’s interpretation of Section 80A(5), observing that a deduction under Chapter VI-A, including Section 80P, must be claimed through a valid return of income. It distinguished the statutory position applicable before and after the amendment to Section 80AC effective from 1 April 2018. For Assessment Year 2017-18, a valid return filed within the applicable time allowed under Section 139(4), Section 142(1) or Section 148 could support a deduction claim. However, the assessee had filed no return before completion of assessment despite receiving notices. Therefore, the issue was not merely a delayed return under Section 139(1), but the complete absence of the statutorily required return containing the deduction claim.
Following the Kerala High Court judgment in Nileshwar Range and the decisions of its coordinate benches, particularly Narasimha Rao Palem Primary Agricultural Credit Society Limited v. ITO, the Tribunal concluded that the deduction under Section 80P could not be granted. It also referred to the reasoning adopted in Maruthi Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited and The Vatsavai Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited, which concerned the requirement to claim deductions through a valid return. The Tribunal accordingly confirmed the disallowance of ₹46,29,584 under Section 80P and dismissed the assessee’s appeal. The ruling emphasises that establishing the cooperative nature of the activities and submitting books of account during assessment proceedings do not dispense with the statutory requirement of making a deduction claim in a valid income-tax return.
Cases Discussed / Relied Upon
1. Nileshwar Range Kallu Chethu Vyavasaya Thozhilali Sahakarana Sangham Vs CIT (Kerala High Court); ITA No. 120 of 2019; 14/03/2023; (2023) 459 ITR 730; 152 taxmann.com 347; 333 CTR 655. The Kerala High Court held that a deduction under Section 80P must be claimed through a valid return of income filed within the time permitted by the applicable statutory provisions. The decision distinguished the requirements existing before and after the amendment to Section 80AC effective from 1 April 2018. The Tribunal followed this decision while denying the deduction.
2. The Chandarlapdu Large Size Cooperative Credit Society Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Visakhapatnam); ITA No. 11/VIZ/2025; 12/06/2025. The assessee relied upon this decision in support of the proposition that deduction under Section 80P could be allowed where a return was filed after the due date under Section 139(1). The Tribunal distinguished the present case because no return had been filed at all. Exact TaxGuru judgment URL not verified.
3. Maruthi Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Visakhapatnam); ITA No. 151/VIZ/2022; 28/02/2024; AY 2017-18. The Revenue relied on this decision for the requirement to make a Section 80P deduction claim through a valid return of income. Its findings were reproduced in the order through the decision in Narasimha Rao Palem Primary Agricultural Credit Society Limited. Exact TaxGuru judgment URL not verified.
4. Narasimha Rao Palem Primary Agricultural Credit Society Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Visakhapatnam); ITA No. 211/VIZ/2023; AY 2017-18. The coordinate bench upheld the disallowance of Section 80P deduction where a valid income-tax return had not been filed in accordance with Section 139. The Tribunal reproduced an extensive extract from this decision and applied its reasoning.
5. The Vatsavai Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Visakhapatnam); ITA No. 220/VIZ/2021; AY 2017-18. This decision, reproduced within the quoted findings of Maruthi Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited, concerned the denial of Section 80P deduction where the return had not been filed within the permissible statutory period. Exact TaxGuru judgment URL not verified.
6. Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Limited Vs CIT (Kerala High Court); (2016) 384 ITR 490. The judgment was discussed within the reproduced coordinate-bench decision concerning belated returns and Section 80P deductions. Its application was distinguished where no valid return had been filed. Related TaxGuru judgment discussion.
7. Saidatar Co-operative Credit Society Limited. The assessee’s reliance on this precedent was examined in the reproduced decision in Maruthi Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited. It was distinguished because the applicability of Section 80A(5) had not been discussed. Exact case citation and TaxGuru judgment URL not verified.
8. CIT Vs Sri Vasavi Gold & Bullion Pvt. Ltd. (Madras High Court). This precedent was referred to in the reproduced decision in The Vatsavai Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited. It was distinguished because the cited case involved a technical issue relating to electronic filing of appeals, unlike the present dispute involving the absence of an income-tax return. Exact citation and TaxGuru judgment URL not verified.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
1. The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the impugned order dated 31.10.2025, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”], for the A.Y. 2017-18.
2. At the outset, it is noticed from the appeal record that there is a delay of 24 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal. Explaining the reasons for belated filing of the appeal, the Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] drew our attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee along with a petition seeking for condonation of delay and read out the contents of the petition which is as under:-
“1. Assessee was served with order passed u/s 250 of the IT Act dt.31.01.2025. Whereas, the assessee being aggrieved was desirous to file appeal before the Hon’ble ITAT and the appeal was filed on dt: 24.04.2025 as against the due date of filing i.e., dt.02.04.2025, thus causing a delay of 23 days. The reasons and circumstances under which the appeal was filed belatedly are stated here under:
a) The delay in filing this appeal was entirely unintentional and beyond my control. On dt:25.03.2025, I was affected with Typhoid fever and recovered after about three weeks. Accordingly, the appeal was filed on dt. 24.04.2025 causing a delay of 23 days.
2. In light of the above, it is stated that I have no malafide intension in filing the appeal belatedly. I respectfully request the condonation of this delay in filing the appeal. I assure once again that the delay was not a result of any negligence or lack of diligence on my part, but solely due to the unfortunate and unforeseen circumstances surrounding my health.
3. In light of the exceptional circumstances surrounding my health, I kindly request hon’ble bench to condone the delay in filing the appeal. This would allow me the opportunity to have a fair and just hearing on the merits of my case.”
3. On perusal of the contents of the affidavit filed by the assessee as well as the submission of the Ld. AR, we find that the assessee is prevented by a reasonable and sufficient cause in filing the appeal beyond the prescribed time limit with a delay of 24 days. Therefore, we hereby condone the delay of 24 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs.
4. The only issue to be adjudicated in the above cited appeal is whether the Appellant Cooperative Society is entitled for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, when the return was not filed under section 139(1).
5. From the assessment order, it is observed that, the assessee did not file the return of income at all and there was information in the possession of the Department that the assessee-society deposited cash of Rs.3,05,000/- in Krishna District Central Co-operative Bank, Chatrai, Krishna District. The assessee did not file the return of income either under section 139(1) of the Act or even after issuance of notice under section 142(1) of the Act calling for the return of income. Since no return of income was filed before 31.03.2018 i.e., the last date for filing valid return of income, a notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued which is duly served. Even then, no return of income was filed by the appellant-society and during the assessment proceedings the appellant-society has furnished the details of Trading Account, Income and Expenditure Account and Balance Sheet, but no return of income was filed. From the submissions made during the assessment proceedings, it is observed that appellant-society earned a profit of Rs. 46,29,584/- and the entire amount was claimed as deduction under section 80P of the Act. Since there was no return of income, the Ld. AO completed the assessment under section 144 of the Act.
6. The case relates to the A.Y. 2017-18 and from the assessment order it is observed that there is no proper compliance with regard to the submission of the details as called for by the Ld. AO. In view of the same, the deduction claimed by the appellant-society under section 80P of the Act was disallowed while completing the assessment.
7. But from Para 3 of the assessment order, it is observed that the assessee furnished the particulars relating to members of the society to whom credit facility was provided to fulfil the primary needs of its members, i.e., sanction of crop loan, supply of fertilizers etc. Out of the deposits collected from its Members and the income earned is out of activities rendered among the members of the society, the loans are being disbursed. The assessee has also furnished the Trading and Profit & Loss Account along with the Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2017. Despite providing these details, the Ld. AO passed order under section 144 of the Act.
8. Aggrieved, by the disallowance claimed by the appellant-society under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). the order of the Ld. CIT(A) shows that despite giving five opportunities, the appellant-society did not furnish the required information and hence it was adjudicated that the appellant-society is not entitled for deduction under section 80P of the Act as no return of income was filed claiming the deduction in terms of section 80A(5) of the Act. It was also held that section 80AC of the Act is not applicable in this case and hence the appeal of the appellant was dismissed.
9. Further, aggrieved by the orders of the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A), an appeal was filed before ITAT. During the hearing proceedings before the ITAT, the Ld.AR of the appellant has filed the paper book and also relied on certain case laws. From the written submissions filed by the Ld.AR of the appellant, it is observed that for the A.Y. 2017-18, the appellant is entitled for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act even though return was filed with delay and beyond the dates prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. In continuation of the argument the Ld.AR relied on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench decision in the case of The Chandarlapdu Large Size Cooperative Credit Society Limited v. ITO in ITA No. 11/VIZ/2025 dated 12.06.2025. In this case, the assessee has filed the return of income belatedly and claimed deduction under section 80P of the Act and the same was allowed by the Co-ordinate Bench, even though, the return was filed beyond the dates specified under section 139(1) of the Act.
10. Per contra, Ld. Departmental Representative [hereinafter in short “Ld. DR”] relied on the following decisions:
a) Nileshwar Range Kallu Chethu Vyavasaya Thozhilali Sahaskarana Sangham v. CIT (2023) 459 ITR 730/152 taxmann.com347/333 CTR 655 (Ker)/HC.
b) Maruthi primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. v. ITO in ITA No. 151/VIZ/2022 for the A.Y. 2017-18.
c) Narasimha Rao Palem Primary Agricultural Credit Society Ltd. v. ITO in ITA No. 211/VIZ/2023 for the A.Y. 2017-18.
11. Ld. DR has argued and also in the written submissions it was mentioned that the deduction under section 80P of the Act can be allowed only when the return of income is filed in terms of section 80A(5) of the Act which mandates that no deduction under section Chapter VIA including section 80P shall be allowed unless the deduction claimed is in the return of income filed under the Act. If there is no valid claim in the return, then the same would disentitle the appellant from availing the deduction. The written submission of the Ld. DR are reproduced for clarity: –
“1. Legal Framework
Section 80A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 mandates that no deduction under Chapter VI-A, including Section 80P, shall be allowed unless it is claimed in a return of income filed under the Act. Thus, failure to make a valid claim in the return disentitles the assessee from availing the deduction.
2. Judicial Precedents
1. Nileshwar Range Kallu Chethu Vyavasava Thozhilali Sahakarana Sangham v. CIT (2023) 459 ITR 730/152 taxmann.com 347 / 333 CTR 655(Ker)(HC)
Hon ble High court Held that a reading of section 80A(5) and section 80AC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as they stood prior to April 1, 2018, would reveal that the statutory scheme under the Act was to admit only such claims for deduction under section 80P of the Act as were made by the assessee in a return of income filed by him. That return could be under section 139(1), (4), 142(1) or 148, and to be valid. had to be filed within the due date contemplated under those provisions. Under section 80A(5), the claim for deduction under section 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. The amendment to section 80AC with effect from April 1, 2018, however, mandated that for an assessee to get a deduction under section 8OP of the Income-tax Act, it had to furnish a return of his income for such assessment year on or before the due date specified in section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act. In other words, after April 1, 2018, even if the assessee made its claim for deduction under section 80P in a return filed within time under section 139(4), 142(1) or 148, it would not be allowed the deduction, unless the return in question was filed within the due date prescribed under section 139(1). Thus, it is clear that the statutory scheme permits the allowance of a deduction under section SOP of the Act only if it is made in a return recognised as such under the Act, and after April 1, 2018, only if that return is one filed within the time prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. On the facts as the returns in these cases, for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11, were admittedly filed after the dates prescribed under section 139(1) and (4) or in the notices issued under section 142(1) and section 148, the returns were nonest and could not have been acted upon by the Assessing Officer even though they were filed before the completion of the assessment. (AY.2009-10, 2010-11)
2. Decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Visakhapatnam in the case of Maruthi Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(5), Vijayawada, Vide ITA No. 151/VIZ/2022 for the A.Y. 2017-18.
3. Decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Visakhapatnam in the case of The Narasimha Rao Palem Primary Agricultural Credit Society Ltd Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3), Vijayawada, Vide ITA No. 211/VIZ/2023 for the A.Y. 2017-18.
3. Conclusion
In the present case, the assessee has not made a valid return and thereby failed to comply with the statutory mandate of Section 80A(5) for AY 2017-18.
It is therefore humbly prayed that the appeal of the assessee be dismissed and the disallowance of deduction u/s 8OP be upheld.”
12. While concluding, the Ld. DR has argued that the assessee has not filed the return at all before the completion of the assessment and thereby failed to comply with the statutory mandate of section 80A(5) for the A.Y. 2017-18. Both the decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench relied on by the Ld. DR relevant to A.Y. 2017-18 i.e., prior to the amendment itself. Ld. DR concluded her argument by stating that in view of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court decision and the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench pertaining to the Assessment year 2017-18, and hence submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the Revenue and hence prayed that disallowance made by the Ld. AO should be confirmed.
13. Heard rival submissions and after perusal of the written submissions and case laws relied on by the both the parties, the Bench decides to confirm the disallowance made by the Ld. AO for the following reasons:
a) The Bench agrees with the argument of Ld. DR that to claim any deduction including deduction under section 80P of the Act, section 80A(5) of the Act mandates that no deduction shall be allowed unless the same is claimed in the return of income filed under the Act.
b) In other words, failure to make a valid claim in the return of income disentitles the assessee from availing the deduction.
14. In the impugned case, it is an admitted fact that there was no return of income filed by the appellant-society before completion of the assessment. Despite the notice issued to the appellant-society, no valid return of income was filed by the appellant before the completion of assessment. Prior to the Amendment of 01.04.2018; the assessee is entitled to claim the deduction if a valid return is filed with the time prescribed under section 139(4) / 142(1) /148 of the Act. After 01.04.2018 amendment; in order to claim the deduction, the assessee should file the return of income within the time prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. In the present case, the appellant-society did not file the return of income at all before the completion of assessment despite the notices were issued. In view of the same, Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Nileshwar Range Kallu Chethu Vyavasaya Thozhilali Sahaskarana Sangham v. CIT (supra) and two decisions (supra) of Co-ordinate Bench have adjudicated that prior to the A.Y. 2018-19, there should be a valid return of income to claim the deduction under section 80P of the Act and in the absence of the same the appellant-society is not entitled for deduction claimed.
15. On the same issue, for the A.Y. 2017-18, the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Narasimha Rao Palem Primary Agricultural Credit Society Ltd. v. ITO (supra) has denied the benefit under section 80P of the Act even when the return of income was filed beyond the due dates mentioned under section 139(1) / 139(4) of the Act. The operative portion of Narasimha Rao Palem Primary Agricultural Credit Society Ltd. v. ITO (supra) is reproduced for the sake of clarity.
“5. We have heard both the parties perused the material available on record and the orders of the authorities below. Admitted facts are that the assessee has not filed its return of income U/s. 139 of the Act within the prescribed time limit for the impugned assessment year but has submitted trading account, P & L Account, account and balance sheet as on 31/3/2017. Therefore, the Ld. AO applied the provisions of section 80A(5) of the Act since the assessee has not filed a valid return of income as per the provisions of section 139 of the Act and disallowed the claim of deduction u/s. 80P of the Act. Under similar facts and circumstances, the SMC Bench of this Tribunal in ITA No. 151/Viz/2022 in the case of Maruthi Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited vs. ITO order dated 28/02/2024 (supra) has held as under:
“4. I have heard both the parties perused the material available on record and the orders of the authorities below. Admitted facts are that the assessee has not filed its return of income U/s. 139 of the Act within the prescribed time limit for the impugned assessment year but has submitted trading account, P & L Account, income and expenditure account and balance sheet as on 31/3/2017 during the assessment proceedings only after issuance of show cause notice U/s. 144 of the Act. Therefore, the Ld. AO applied the provisions of section 80A(5) of the Act since the assessee has not filed a valid return of income as per the provisions of section 139 of the Act and disallowed the claim of deduction u/s. 80P of the Act. Section 80A(5) of the Act is extracted below for reference:
Section 80A(5) of the Act is extracted below for reference:
“Sec. 80A (5) Where the assessee fails to make a claim in his return of income for any deduction under section 10A or section 10AA or section 10B or section 10BA or under any provision of this Chapter under the heading “C.—Deductions in respect of certain incomes”, no deduction shall be allowed to him thereunder.’;”
5. As per sub-section (5) of section 80A of the Act it is imperative to the assessee to make a claim in its valid return of income for any deduction under any provisions of the Chapter under the heading “Cdeduction in respect of certain incomes”. Since the assessee has failed to file its valid return of income within the prescribed time for the relevant assessment year claiming the deduction prima facie no deduction is permissible under the Act. Similarly, the assessee has not filed its valid return of income either U/s. 139(1) or U/s. 139(4) of the Act as observed by the Ld. AO as well as Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC and therefore, the Ld. AO held that the assessee failed to make the claim of deduction U/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. I cannot appreciate the argument of the Ld. AR that the provisions of section 80AC are not applicable to the case of the assessee as the substitution came into effect from 01/04/2018 ie., for the AY 2018-19 on wards because even after the substitution by Finance Act, 2018, to claim the deduction U/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, the assessee has to file a valid return of income within the stipulated time as per the provisions of section 139 of the Act which is missing in the instant case. Further, on perusal of the case law relied on by the Ld. AR in the case of Saidatar Co-operative Credit Society Limited (supra), I find that there is no discussion about the applicability of the provisions of section 80A(5) which goes to the root of the matter. Further, on identical issue, the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of The Vatsavai Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited vs. ITO in ITA No. 220/Viz/2021 (AY 2017-18) has observed as under:
“6. We have heard both the parties perused the material available on record and the orders of the authorities below. Admitted facts are that the assessee has not filed its return of income for the impugned assessment year but has submitted trading account, P & L Account, income and expenditure account and balance sheet as on 31/3/2017 during the assessment proceedings. Section 80A(5) of the Act is extracted below for reference:
“Sec. 80A (5) Where the assessee fails to make a claim in his return of income for any deduction under section 10A or section 10AA or section 10B or section 10BA or under any provision of this Chapter under the heading “C.—Deductions in respect of certain incomes”, no deduction shall be allowed to him thereunder.’;”
7. As per sub-section (5) of section 80A of the Act it is imperative to the assessee to make a claim in its return of income for any deduction under any provisions of the Chapter under the heading “C-deduction in respect of certain incomes”. Since the assessee has failed to file its return of income claiming the deduction prima facie no deduction is permissible under the Act. Similarly, the assessee has filed return of income manually on 5/3/2022 which was sent by speed post to CPC, Bangalore on 15/3/2022. It is noticed from the submissions made by the Ld.AR that the return has been filed U/s. 139(4) of the Act. As per section 139(4) of the Act “Any person who has not furnished a return within the time allowed to him under sub-section (1), may furnish the return for any previous year at any time before three months prior to the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier.” It is noted from the paper book page no. 21 the assessee has filed its return of income for the AY 2017-18on 5/3/2022 u/s. 139(4) of the Act. We are of the view that since the return of income has been filed after completion of the assessment, the return should have been held as invalid and hence the claim made by the assessee for deduction U/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) cannot be held as an admissible deduction under the Act. The decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Chirakkal Service Cooperative Bank vs. CIT (supra) relied on by the Ld. AR cannot be accepted due to the fact that in that case, the assessee has filed the belated return within the due dates. Similarly, in the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sri Vasavi Gold & Bullion Pvt Ltd (supra) there was a technical issue in the e-filing of the appeals. But in the instant case the assessee has never filed its return of income. We therefore are inclined to uphold the order of the Revenue Authorities and dismiss the appeal of the assessee.”
The above decision of this Tribunal on similar issue being Division Bench decision is binding on me. Therefore, I am of the view that since the return of income has not been filed in accordance with the provisions of section 139 of the Act, it was rightly held by the Ld. Revenue Authorities that the claim made by the assessee for deduction U/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) cannot be held as an admissible deduction under the Act. I am therefore inclined to uphold the orders of the Revenue Authorities and dismiss the appeal of the assessee.”
6. Respectfully following the decision of this Bench on identical facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the Ld. Revenue Authorities have rightly held that the claim of the assessee for deduction U/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act cannot be held as an admissible deduction as per the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, we are inclined to uphold the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities thereby dismissing the grounds raised by the assessee.”
16. From the above discussion, it is observed that if the return of income was filed beyond the due dates mentioned under section 139(1) / 139(4) of the Act still the assessee was not entitled for deduction under section 80P of the Act for the A.Y. 2017-18 also. In the impugned case, the appellant-society did not file the return of income at all despite the notices under section 142(1) of the Act were issued to the appellant. As discussed above, it is mandatory to file the return of income to claim any deduction including of deduction under section 80P of the Act. It is an admitted fact that there was no return of income before completion of the assessment and hence the denial of the deduction under section 80P of the Act by the Revenue is held valid and the deduction under section 80P of the Act cannot be allowed under the above circumstances.
17. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 24th February, 2026.
