Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee was denied the benefit of deduction under Section 80P(2) for A.Y. 2021-2022 because Form 10CCB was not filed by the due date, although it was filed along with the return. This denial was made through an intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act, which the assessee contended was not permissible as it did not constitute an arithmetical error or incorrect claim apparent from the return.
Held
The Tribunal held that the denial of deduction under Section 80P(2) cannot be processed via an intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act, as it falls outside the prescribed criteria and conditions of Section 143(1). Consequently, the intimation issued by the CPC was quashed.
Key Issues
Whether the denial of deduction under Section 80P(2) due to the delayed filing of Form 10CCB can be validly made through an intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act.
Sections Cited
80P(2), 143(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI
O R D E R
Per George Mathan, JM :
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 25.02.2025 of the ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Mumbai, passed in DIN & Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1073693319(1) for the assessment year 2021-2022.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Abhijit Adhikary, ld. Sr.DR appeared on behalf of the revenue. 3. On perusal of the statement of facts filed before the ld. CIT(A), we find that the assessee has been denied the benefit of deduction u/s.80P(2) of the Act on the ground that the Form 10CCB is not filed within the due date or the extended due date for the A.Y.2021-2022. It was the submission that the same has been filed along with the return. It was also the submission that no show cause notice was issued to the assessee. The 2 assessee has specifically raised this issue in the statement of facts before the ld.CIT(A). It was the submission that the adjustment which to be made is in an adjustment made u/s.143(1) of the Act, insofar as the same did not fall within the criteria of arithmetical error in the return or an incorrect claim which is apparent from any information in the return. 4. Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the intimation has been issued by the CPC. He vehemently supported the order of the of the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A). 5. We have considered the submissions of the ld. Sr.DR. A perusal of the facts in the present case clearly shows that the denial of exemption u/s.80P(2) of the Act is not something which can be done in an intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act, insofar as it does not fall within any of the criterion or the conditions prescribed in the provisions of Section 143(1) of the Act. As the denial of the exemption u/s.80P(2) of the Act has been made for the reasons beyond the criterion mentioned in the provisions of Section 143(1) of the Act, we are of the view that the intimation issued u/s.143(1) of the Act would fail and consequently the said intimation stands quashed. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 25/06/2025. (SANJAY AWASTHI) (GEORGE MATHAN) लेखा सदस्य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्यधनयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER कोलकाता Kolkata; ददनाांक Dated 25/06/2025 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S.