Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80P(2) was denied by the Assessing Officer for A.Y. 2018-19 in rectification proceedings under Section 154, solely due to the belated filing of the return of income. The assessee's previous appeal was recalled for fresh adjudication after the CIT condoned the delay in filing the return under Section 119(2)(b).
Held
The tribunal held that since the delay in filing the return of income had been condoned by the competent authority (CIT), the sole reason for denying the Section 80P(2) deduction no longer existed. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT (A) denying the deduction was set aside, and the claim for deduction under Section 80P(2) was allowed.
Key Issues
Whether the denial of deduction under Section 80P(2) in rectification proceedings under Section 154, due to belated filing of return, can be sustained when the delay in filing the return has been subsequently condoned by the CIT under Section 119(2)(b).
Sections Cited
80P(2), 154, 143(3), 139(1), 119(2)(b), 80AC(ii)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘DB-A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-Shri Madhusudan Sawdia
Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice President
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 21/09/2022 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC Delhi, relating to A.Y.2018-19.
Earlier this appeal of the assessee was disposed of by this Tribunal vide order dated 17/10/2023 and thereafter, the said order was recalled in the M.A No.10/Hyd/2024 vide order
Page 1 of 6 dated 04/03/2025 for fresh adjudication of the appeal of the assessee. The relevant observation of the Tribunal in order dated 4/3/2025 in M.A. No.10/Hyd/2024 in para 4 to 8 reads as under: “4. We have considered the rival submissions as well as carefully perused the orders of the authorities below as well as the impugned order of this Tribunal. For the A.Y 2018-19, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
5. Thus, the assessee has challenged the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to disallow the deduction u/s 80P(2) while passing the order u/s 154 of the Act. This Tribunal vide composite order dated 17/10/2023 disposed of the appeals of the assessee for the A.Y 2016-17 and 2018-19. The grounds raised for the ay 2016-17 are reproduced by the Tribunal in Para 2.1 as under: "1. The order of the learned First Appellate Authority is not correct, either in law or on facts and in both.
2. The learned First Appellate Authority is not justified in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer denying deduction u/s 80P2) in the proceedings u/s 154. The issue involved is debatable and hence cannot be subject matter of adjustments u/s 154.
3 The learned First Appellate Authority is not justified in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer denying deduction u/s 80P(2) in respect of interest received on deposits made in Nationalised Banks amounting to Rs. 6,77,560/-.”
6. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee for the A.Y 2016- 17 are also arising from the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 154 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and to that extent the grounds for the A.Ys 2016-17 and 2018-19 are identical except the fact that for the A.Y 2018-19, the Assessing Officer has disallowed the claim of the assessee only on the ground that there was a delay in filing the return of income. Since the Assessing Officer already allowed the claim of the assessee u/s 80P(2) while passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 3/3/2021, therefore, a rectification order dated 8/9/2021 u/s 154 of the Act was passed by the Assessing Officer to disallow the claim of deduction u/s 80P of the I.T. Act, 1961 as under:
Thus, the sole reason for disallowing the claim of deduction u/s 80P in the order passed u/s 154 is delay in filing the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. Now the assessee has filed the order dated 13/12/2023 of the CIT whereby the delay in filing the return of income for the A.Y 2018-19 has been condoned. The relevant part of this order in para 6 and 7 are reproduced as under:
8.Thus, in view of the subsequent development of condonation of delay in filing the return of income, the matter requires reconsideration. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, as discussed above, we recall the impugned order of the Tribunal for the A.Y 2018-19 for fresh adjudication of the appeal of the assessee. The Registry is directed to fix the appeal of the assessee for hearing in ordinary course.
Thus, this appeal was listed for fresh hearing and adjudication. The learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the Assessing Officer has disallowed deduction u/s 80P(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 while passing the order u/s 154 of the Act on the ground that the assessee has filed the return of income belatedly. He has pointed out that the learned CIT vide order dated 13/12/2023 has condoned the delay in filing the return of income for the year under consideration and therefore, the reason for disallowing the claim u/s 80P(2) is no more in existence once the Page 4 of 6 delay in filing the return of income has been condoned by the learned CIT. Thus, the learned AR has submitted that the impugned order of the authorities below are liable to be set aside and the claim of deduction u/s 80P(2) be allowed.
On the other hand, the learned DR has not disputed the fact that the delay in filing the return has been condoned by the learned CIT vide order dated 13/12/2023.
Having considered the rival submission and careful perusal of the relevant record, we find that the Assessing Officer denied the claim of deduction u/s 80P(2) of the Act on the ground that there is a delay in filing the return of income for the year under consideration. The assessee approached the competent authorities i.e. the learned CIT for condonation of delay in filing the return of income which has been condoned vide order dated 13/12/2023. The relevant part of the order of the learned CIT has been reproduced by the Tribunal while passing the order dated 4/3/2025 deciding the Miscellaneous Application which is again reproduced in the foregoing part of this order. Thus, in view of the fact that the delay in filing the return of income has already been condoned by the competent authority, the very ground on which the claim of the assessee u/s 80P(2) was denied is no more in existence. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside the impugned order of the learned CIT (A) and allow the claim of the assessee u/s 80P(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.