Extended due date for audit under another law sustained timely return and allowed cooperative deduction claim.

Substantial delay in filing the first appeal was condoned because the assessee had bona fide pursued rectification under section 154, showing a genuine alternative remedy rather than negligence. The assessee was also held entitled to the extended due date under the second Explanation to section 139(1) because its accounts were required to be audited under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, a law in force apart from the Income-tax Act. The return filed within that extended period was treated as timely, so the denial of deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) solely for late filing was unsustainable, and relief was granted on both limitation and deduction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the substantial delay in filing the first appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) deserved condonation on the explanation offered; (ii) Whether the assessee, being subject to audit under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, was entitled to the extended due date under clause (ii) of the second Explanation to section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, so as to sustain the claim under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether the substantial delay in filing the first appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) deserved condonation on the explanation offered.

Analysis: The explanation for delay was that the assessee had first pursued rectification proceedings under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, under a bona fide belief that the disallowance was a mistake apparent from the record. The rectification route was pursued in good faith and remained pending for a considerable period. The delay was therefore treated as explained by a genuine and bona fide cause rather than negligence or deliberate non-compliance, and substantial justice was preferred over technical default.

Conclusion: The delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was condonable and stood condoned.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee, being subject to audit under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, was entitled to the extended due date under clause (ii) of the second Explanation to section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, so as to sustain the claim under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The assessee was registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, and was statutorily required to get its accounts audited under section 37 of that Act. Clause (ii) of the second Explanation to section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, extends the due date where audit is required under the Income-tax Act or any other law for the time being in force. On that basis, the extended due date applied to the assessee, and the return filed on 25.09.2019 was within time. The disallowance of deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) solely on the ground of late filing was therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the extended due date, and the deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was allowable.

Final Conclusion: The appellate order rejecting the claim was set aside, and the assessee obtained relief both on limitation and on the substantive deduction claim.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxpayer is required to undergo audit under any other law for the time being in force, the extended due date under the second Explanation to section 139(1) applies, and a delay in appeal may be condoned when the taxpayer shows a bona fide and bona fide-pursued alternative remedy.

---