CPC denied my society's 80P in a 143(1) intimation because the return was late. Can it?
Not outright. The Tribunal accepted the submission that a debatable issue cannot be adjusted under s.143(1)(a), and said that a co-operative society whose s.80P claim is valid and substantiated should not be denied it merely because the return was late - but it did not quash the intimations and did not decide the s.80AC(ii) question. It remitted all three appeals to the Assessing Officer to examine the claims, allowing them for statistical purposes, and expressly directed that the decision is confined to its own facts and is not to be treated as a precedent.
Decided by the ITAT (ITAT Rajkot - Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member (single member); ITA Nos. 312 and 313/RJT/2022 and ITA No. 11/RJT/2023; AY 2019-20 in each) on 2025-01-10, reported as ITA Nos. 312 & 313/RJT/2022 and ITA No. 11/RJT/2023 (Rajkot Trib.); AY 2019-20 - the order prints no law-report citation. It bears on section 80P, section 80AC, section 80AC(ii), section 139(1), section 139(4), section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Co-operative Societies, Deductions & Disallowances and Assessment & Scrutiny matters.
It answers, in practice, the automated CPC disallowance many societies receive after filing under s.139(4): the Bench was unwilling to let the disallowance stand unexamined and sent the claims back to be looked at on merits. But what it did was remit, not hold that s.80AC(ii) does not apply, and at para 12 the Bench said in terms that the decision is confined to its facts and is not a precedent. So it is worth little as authority and a good deal as a description of the route.
Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
Three Gujarat co-operative societies, each for assessment year 2019-20, filed their returns of income after the due date under s.139(1) but within the time allowed by s.139(4). The Centralised Processing Centre, Bangalore, denied the s.80P deduction by intimation under s.143(1) - in the lead case an intimation dated 22 December 2020 disallowing a deduction of Rs 12,31,653 - on the ground that the claim was not admissible under s.80AC(ii) because the return had been filed beyond the prescribed time. The Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, upheld the disallowance. The three appeals were ITA Nos. 312 and 313/RJT/2022 and ITA No. 11/RJT/2023, heard together.
The three appeals were allowed for statistical purposes - that is, remitted, not decided in the assessees' favour. The Tribunal found merit in the submission that where the issue is debatable s.143(1)(a) is not to be invoked (para 10), but it did not go on to hold the intimations invalid on that ground. It noted that certain Chapter VI-A deductions, s.80P among them, must be claimed in a return filed within the time in s.139(1), and set against that the consideration that the Government promotes co-operative societies, concluding that where a society is eligible for s.80P and the claim is valid and substantiated the genuine claim should not be denied merely because the return was filed late; it therefore remitted the three matters to the Assessing Officer to examine the claims, with a direction that if the assessees satisfy the conditions of s.80P the deduction be allowed in accordance with law (para 11). At para 12 the Tribunal recorded in terms that the decision is rendered on the peculiar facts of these cases, cannot be construed as laying down propositions of law of general application, and shall not be treated as a precedent in any preceding or succeeding assessment year.
The Tribunal took two steps and stopped short of a third. First, at para 10 it recorded that it found merit in counsel's submission that if the issue is a debatable one then s.143(1)(a) is not to be invoked, counsel having pointed to a line of decisions to that effect - but it drew no conclusion of its own from that, and did not annul the intimations on it. Second, at para 11 it set the statutory position (s.139(4) permits a belated return, but Chapter VI-A deductions including s.80P are to be claimed in a return filed within the s.139(1) time) against the policy consideration that the Government promotes co-operative societies, and concluded that a genuine, valid and substantiated s.80P claim should not be denied merely for late filing. It did not construe s.80AC(ii). It remitted the three matters for examination of the claims and allowed the appeals for statistical purposes. Third, at para 12, it confined the decision to its own facts and directed that it not be treated as a precedent in any preceding or succeeding year.
I note that Government is promoting Cooperative societies, and if these Co-operative societies, are eligible for deductions under Section 80P of the Act, even if the return is filed late, as long as the claim is valid and substantiated, their genuine claim, should not be denied.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppNot outright. The Tribunal accepted the submission that a debatable issue cannot be adjusted under s.143(1)(a), and said that a co-operative society whose s.80P claim is valid and substantiated should not be denied it merely because the return was late - but it did not quash the intimations and did not decide the s.80AC(ii) question. It remitted all three appeals to the Assessing Officer to examine the claims, allowing them for statistical purposes, and expressly directed that the decision is confined to its own facts and is not to be treated as a precedent. This was decided by the ITAT (ITAT Rajkot - Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member (single member); ITA Nos. 312 and 313/RJT/2022 and ITA No. 11/RJT/2023; AY 2019-20 in each) and bears on section 80P, section 80AC, section 80AC(ii), section 139(1), section 139(4), section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as ITA Nos. 312 & 313/RJT/2022 and ITA No. 11/RJT/2023 (Rajkot Trib.); AY 2019-20 - the order prints no law-report citation. It answers, in practice, the automated CPC disallowance many societies receive after filing under s.139(4): the Bench was unwilling to let the disallowance stand unexamined and sent the claims back to be looked at on merits. But what it did was remit, not hold that s.80AC(ii) does not apply, and at para 12 the Bench said in terms that the decision is confined to its facts and is not a precedent. So it is worth little as authority and a good deal as a description of the route. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Fix the assessment year first: s.80AC(ii) bites from AY 2018-19 onwards, and all three appeals decided here are for AY 2019-20.
Three Gujarat co-operative societies, each for assessment year 2019-20, filed their returns of income after the due date under s.139(1) but within the time allowed by s.139(4). The Centralised Processing Centre, Bangalore, denied the s.80P deduction by intimation under s.143(1) - in the lead case an intimation dated 22 December 2020 disallowing a deduction of Rs 12,31,653 - on the ground that the claim was not admissible under s.80AC(ii) because the return had been filed beyond the prescribed time. The Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, upheld the disallowance. The three appeals were ITA Nos. 312 and 313/RJT/2022 and ITA No. 11/RJT/2023, heard together. The matter was decided on 2025-01-10 by the ITAT (ITAT Rajkot - Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member (single member); ITA Nos. 312 and 313/RJT/2022 and ITA No. 11/RJT/2023; AY 2019-20 in each). On those facts the ITAT held as follows. The three appeals were allowed for statistical purposes - that is, remitted, not decided in the assessees' favour. The Tribunal found merit in the submission that where the issue is debatable s.143(1)(a) is not to be invoked (para 10), but it did not go on to hold the intimations invalid on that ground. It noted that certain Chapter VI-A deductions, s.80P among them, must be claimed in a return filed within the time in s.139(1), and set against that the consideration that the Government promotes co-operative societies, concluding that where a society is eligible for s.80P and the claim is valid and substantiated the genuine claim should not be denied merely because the return was filed late; it therefore remitted the three matters to the Assessing Officer to examine the claims, with a direction that if the assessees satisfy the conditions of s.80P the deduction be allowed in accordance with law (para 11). At para 12 the Tribunal recorded in terms that the decision is rendered on the peculiar facts of these cases, cannot be construed as laying down propositions of law of general application, and shall not be treated as a precedent in any preceding or succeeding assessment year.
The Tribunal took two steps and stopped short of a third. First, at para 10 it recorded that it found merit in counsel's submission that if the issue is a debatable one then s.143(1)(a) is not to be invoked, counsel having pointed to a line of decisions to that effect - but it drew no conclusion of its own from that, and did not annul the intimations on it. Second, at para 11 it set the statutory position (s.139(4) permits a belated return, but Chapter VI-A deductions including s.80P are to be claimed in a return filed within the s.139(1) time) against the policy consideration that the Government promotes co-operative societies, and concluded that a genuine, valid and substantiated s.80P claim should not be denied merely for late filing. It did not construe s.80AC(ii). It remitted the three matters for examination of the claims and allowed the appeals for statistical purposes. Third, at para 12, it confined the decision to its own facts and directed that it not be treated as a precedent in any preceding or succeeding year. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "I note that Government is promoting Cooperative societies, and if these Co-operative societies, are eligible for deductions under Section 80P of the Act, even if the return is filed late, as long as the claim is valid and substantiated, their genuine claim, should not be denied."
It was decided by the ITAT on 2025-01-10 and is reported as ITA Nos. 312 & 313/RJT/2022 and ITA No. 11/RJT/2023 (Rajkot Trib.); AY 2019-20 - the order prints no law-report citation. Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A Tribunal decision binds the assessing officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) within that Tribunal's jurisdiction, and is persuasive before other benches. It is not binding on a High Court, and a contrary co-ordinate bench decision will be argued against you, so check whether the point has been taken the other way before you build a reply around it. On section 80P, section 80AC, section 80AC(ii), section 139(1), section 139(4), section 143(1), the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It cuts both ways and is cited by both sides. The three appeals were allowed for statistical purposes - that is, remitted, not decided in the assessees' favour. The Tribunal found merit in the submission that where the issue is debatable s.143(1)(a) is not to be invoked (para 10), but it did not go on to hold the intimations invalid on that ground. It noted that certain Chapter VI-A deductions, s.80P among them, must be claimed in a return filed within the time in s.139(1), and set against that the consideration that the Government promotes co-operative societies, concluding that where a society is eligible for s.80P and the claim is valid and substantiated the genuine claim should not be denied merely because the return was filed late; it therefore remitted the three matters to the Assessing Officer to examine the claims, with a direction that if the assessees satisfy the conditions of s.80P the deduction be allowed in accordance with law (para 11). At para 12 the Tribunal recorded in terms that the decision is rendered on the peculiar facts of these cases, cannot be construed as laying down propositions of law of general application, and shall not be treated as a precedent in any preceding or succeeding assessment year. It arises in Co-operative Societies, Deductions & Disallowances and Assessment & Scrutiny matters, on section 80P, section 80AC, section 80AC(ii), section 139(1), section 139(4), section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by ITAT Rajkot - Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member (single member); ITA Nos. 312 and 313/RJT/2022 and ITA No. 11/RJT/2023; AY 2019-20 in each. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Attack the adjustment as beyond the scope of s.143(1) - a debatable Chapter VI-A claim is not something the Centralised Processing Centre can adjust summarily. Put the supporting material for the s.80P claim on record so that the claim is examined on merits rather than refused on timing. Do not cite this order as authority. The Bench directed at para 12 that it is rendered on the peculiar facts, lays down no proposition of general application and is not to be treated as a precedent in any preceding or succeeding assessment year. Use it, if at all, as an illustration of the practical route - a remand to have the claim examined - and argue the law from a decision that decides it.
Searched for later treatment; none was found. That is not the same as a source affirming it. The citator returns nothing and a case-name search returns a single document, the order itself. Nothing in the Gujarat High Court or in any other Bench has taken up the Rajkot Bench's view on s.80AC and the belated return of a co-operative society. Treat it as a persuasive single-Bench decision only. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The order has now been read in full from the Tribunal's own text, and three things the earlier record did not know change the entry. It is a single-member order of Dr. A.L. Saini, Accountant Member, Rajkot Bench, heard 30 October 2024 and pronounced 10 January 2025, disposing of ITA Nos. 312 and 313/RJT/2022 and ITA No. 11/RJT/2023, all for assessment year 2019-20 - so the year is settled, and it is a year in which s.80AC(ii) applies. First, the disposal is 'allowed for statistical purposes': the three matters were remitted to the Assessing Officer to examine the s.80P claims, and the s.80AC(ii) question was not decided. The entry previously read as though the appeals had been allowed on the merits. Second, the sentence previously quoted here - that adjustments under s.143(1) are limited to patent mistakes or mathematical errors - is the reporting site's wording and is not in the order: the words 'patent' and 'mathematical' do not occur in it on either of two probes, and the Tribunal's own sentence on the point is at para 10, that it found merit in the submission that where the issue is debatable s.143(1)(a) is not to be invoked. Third, and decisively, at para 12 the Bench directed that the decision is rendered on the peculiar facts of these cases, cannot be construed as laying down propositions of law of general application, and shall not be treated as a precedent in any preceding or succeeding assessment year. It should not be cited as authority for anything. Treat the underlying point as contested rather than settled: the entry records a contrary line in the Bangalore and Hyderabad benches, and a Panaji decision going the other way for years before assessment year 2018-19 on the footing that s.80AC applies to co-operative societies only from that year. The 'favours' label was 'taxpayer' and is now 'mixed': the appeals were allowed FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, which is a remand, not a win. The assessee got the issues sent back to the Assessing Officer and nothing else, and the s.80AC(ii) question was never decided. The Tribunal did not decide the s.80AC(ii) question; it remitted the claims for examination and allowed the appeals for statistical purposes only, and it expressly directed that the decision not be treated as a precedent. It accepted that a debatable issue cannot be adjusted under s.143(1)(a) but did not hold the intimations invalid on that ground. The order carries no law-report citation, is not carried in the subscription case-law database searched, and no later decision applying it has been found. The point remains contested: the entry's own research records a contrary line in the Bangalore and Hyderabad benches for years from AY 2018-19. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The three appeals were allowed for statistical purposes - that is, remitted, not decided in the assessees' favour. The Tribunal found merit in the submission that where the issue is debatable s.143(1)(a) is not to be invoked (para 10), but it did not go on to hold the intimations invalid on that ground. It noted that certain Chapter VI-A deductions, s.80P among them, must be claimed in a return filed within the time in s.139(1), and set against that the consideration that the Government promotes co-operative societies, concluding that where a society is eligible for s.80P and the claim is valid and substantiated the genuine claim should not be denied merely because the return was filed late; it therefore remitted the three matters to the Assessing Officer to examine the claims, with a direction that if the assessees satisfy the conditions of s.80P the deduction be allowed in accordance with law (para 11). At para 12 the Tribunal recorded in terms that the decision is rendered on the peculiar facts of these cases, cannot be construed as laying down propositions of law of general application, and shall not be treated as a precedent in any preceding or succeeding assessment year.
TaxSphere, “Shree Dhamel Seva Sahkari v ADIT (CPC)”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/shree-dhamel-seva-sahkari-v-adit-80ac/ (validity last checked 2026-08-19)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
My society filed its return only in response to a 148 notice. Can it still claim 80P?
Our co-operative credit society filed its return late and lost the section 80P deduction under section 80AC. The Chief Commissioner has rejected our section 119(2)(b) condonation application for want of sufficient cause. Is that rejection sustainable?
My co-operative society filed its return late and lost section 80P because of section 80AC. If the delay is condoned under section 119(2)(b), does the deduction come back?
The Department has taxed my housing project income as business profit. Can I claim the section 80-IB(10) deduction now, in appeal, when I never claimed it in my return?
