EXCEL IND EMPLOYEES MULTIPURPOSE CO-OP SOCIETY LTD,ROHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, PANVEL, PANVEL

ORDER

PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:

Findings & Analysis : 2. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, Assessee had filed Return of Income on 28.03.2019 for A.Y.2018-19 claiming deduction u/s.80P of the Act. The DCIT(CPC) vide order dated 25.06.2019 u/s.143(1) of the Act, disallowed assessee’s claim for deduction u/s.80P of the Act, on account of “Return not filed within due date”. Ld.AR for the Assessee submitted that for A.Y.2018-19, there was no provision u/s.143(1) of the Act, to disallow the claim of deduction u/s.80P of the Act, for not filing the Return of Income within the time mentioned u/s.139(1) of the Act. Ld.AR relied on the decision of this ITAT Pune.

2.1 This issue has been decided by the ITAT in Assessee’s favour in various cases. ITAT Pune in vide order dated 05.05.2025 held as under :

“6. We have heard the ld. Departmental Representative and perused the record placed before us. The sole issue agitated in this appeal whether the CPC was justified in denying the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s.80P of the Act. We note that the amendment carried out in Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021 with respect to allowing of deduction u/s.80P of the Act is prospective in nature. Admittedly, the assessment year under consideration is 2019-20. To fortify our view, we would like quote the decision of Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Finolex Industries Ltd. Employees Co-o. Credit Society Ltd. Vs. ITO in dated 03.04.2023 wherein the issue was decided in favour of the assessee by observing as under:

5. We have heard the submissions of the parties, considered the relevant materials/documents on record and analysed the facts and circumstances in this case. Section143(1)(a)(v) of the Act spells out that if any deduction is claimed under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A which include deduction u/s 80P such deduction has to be allowed only if the return is filed within due date specified under sub-section 139(1) of the Act. In other words, if any return is filed beyond due date u/s 139(1) of the Act then no deduction u/s 80P shall be allowed. However, clause (v) was inserted by the Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 01-04-2021. The case of the assessee, on the other hand, is for F.Y. 2018-19 relevant to A.Y. 2019-20 which is the period prior to amendment brought in by the Finance Act, 2021. Before this amendment, clause (v) did not include and cover deduction u/s 80P. So therefore, in the present Case of the assessee though admittedly return was filed beyond the time limit prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act but still section 143(1)(a)(v) is not applicable to the assessee since the case of the assessee is for A.Y. 2019-20, which is before the amendment. We also accept the argument of the ld. A.R for the assessee that even if the revenue intends to invoke clause (ii) of section 143(1)(a) that would also not be permissible since in the definition of incorrect claim as provided in the provision, the deduction u/s 80P is not included anywhere and is therefore, outside the purview of the said provision. Therefore, rigors of provisions of section 143(1)(a)(ii) and clause (v) are not applicable to the case of the assessee. On this legal ground itself, the assessee succeeds and any other grounds on merits, if any, becomes academic in nature.

raised by the assessee are allowed.

8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.” 2.2 Thus, respectfully following the judicial precedence, we allow the appeal of the assessee. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed.