THE NAB WORKSHOP FOR THE BLIND,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(CPC), BANGLORE, BANGALORE

We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The sole disputed issue envisaged by the Ld. AR that the CIT(A) has erred in not granting the set off of current year deficit on account of application money against the deemed income/accumulated income u/s 11(2) in the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act. The Ld AR submitted that the assessee has been complying with the guidelines on accumulation of income from the earlier years. The Ld. AR referred to the page 1 of the paper book, where the computation of income disclosing the total income of the trust and application and also set off of application against the unutilized balance for A.Y 2010-11 u/s 11(2) of the Act is placed. Further, the Ld. AR referred to the The NAB Workshop for the Blind, Mumbai - 5 - return of income filed at page 2 to 19 of the paper book in particular, the assessee has disclosed this fact of accumulation of income and the set off at Part- B, T-1 of the return of income- ITR 7 filed. The assessee has disclosed the facts in the part-B, T-1 and as per the net calculation, the taxable income is worked out to Rs.10,86,165/-.

The Ld.AR mentioned that the assessee has claimed set off at the time of filling the return of income and referred to the correspondence and the submissions made before the CIT(A) placed at page 22 to 27 in the paper book . The contention of the Ld. AR that the provisions of Sec. 143(1) of the Act are only a restrictive provisions and they have to be incorporate only for certain arithmetic error in the return of income for incorrect claim apparent in the return of income filed. The Ld. AR emphasized that there is no incorrect claim in the return of income filed by the assessee. The question before us is regarding the set off of current year deficit against the income under 11(2) of the Act in the intimation u/sec143(1) of the Act. The Ld. AR has relied on the following judicial decisions:

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Natwarlal Chowdhury Charity Trust [1991] (189 IT 656 (Calcutta) 2. The Trustees, The B.N. Gamadia Parsi Hunnarshala v. Assistant Director of Income-Tax (Exemption) [2002] 77 TTJ 274 (Mumbai) 3. Abheraj Baldota Commissioner of 948/Bang/2017) Foundation Income-tax V. ITA The 947 & 948/Bang/2017. 4. Maker Tower 'E' Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. v. The Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax PC (ITA 4093/Mum/2017) 5. Dr Prasaad Narayan Honap v. Income-tax Officer [I.T.A. No. 78/PN/10 6. Ms. Sushiela Natarajan v. Income-tax Officer [2013] 28 IT(T) 237 (Chennai-Trib)

Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee reiterated all the arguments made before CIT(A) and also filed all the details in its paper books consisting the pages 1 to 80. The learned Counsel for the assessee first of all raised the issue of validity of making adjustment under section 143(1) of the Act, he argued that the disallowance of deduction under section 80P2(d) claimed by the assessee on interest earned on deposits given to co-operative banks amounting to Rs. 76,11,781/- is clearly allowable deduction. As per the provisions there is no scope for any disallowance. Moreover, in any case, it is to be held to be debatable issue under debatable issue cannot be disallowed while processing the return under section 143(1) of the Act. The learned Counsel for the assessee took us through the provisions of section 143(1) and the relevant provisions reads as under: - “143. (1) Where a return has been made under section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142, such return shall be processed in the following manner, namely:— (a) the total income or loss shall be computed after making the following adjustments, namely:— (i) any arithmetical error in the return; 92[***] (ii) an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return; 93 [(iii) disallowance of loss claimed, if return of the previous year for which set off of loss is claimed was furnished beyond the due date specified under subsection (1) of section 139;

We have gone through the facts in the present case and noticed that the complete details of the deduction claim under section 80P2(d) on the interest income derived from co-operative banks were filed in the return of income with the CPC. We find no specific reason for not granting of deduction under section 80P2(d) of the Act and how it is incorrect in any manner. Accordingly, the return processed by CPC Bangalore under section 143(1) of the Act disallowing the claim of deduction under section 80P2(d) of the Act, is without any basis and being a highly debatable issue, it cannot be considered while acting under section 143(1) of the Act. Accordingly, we delete the disallowance of deduction and allow this issue of assessee’s appeal on validity of processing by CPC under section 143(1) of the Act.

Since, we have adjudicated the issue on validity of processing of return under section 143(1) of the Act and allowed the claim of the assessee on the very jurisdiction. Hence, we need not to adjudicate the issue on merits. The appeal of assessee is allowed.

In the result, the appeal assessee is allowed

As regards the argument of the assessee that the IT Form 7 does not have a separate schedule for deemed income, the same is without merit. The IT forms do not laid down law. In the instant case the IT Form had a provision for declaring income chargeable under section The NAB Workshop for the Blind, Mumbai - 10 - 11(3) of the Act and the assessee had also filled in the relevant figure in its Return. The ITR Form does not have any column for application of this amount as it is not the income derived from the property of the Trust. This argument of the assessee is rejected.

The assessee is also argued that the matter was debatable and it cannot be adjusted in the intimation. This contention of the assessee is baseless. The law is very clear and it has been consistently been so since past decades. Under section 143(1), the AO is permitted to make an adjustment of an incorrect claim if the same is apparent from any information the return. In the case of the assessee it had itself declared the additional income chargeable to tax under section 11(3) of the Act but had not taken it as taxable. This discrepancy was adjusted under section 143(1) of the Act, which is as per the law. Therefore, the ground of appeal

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.