Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a co-operative society, claimed deductions u/s 80P(2)(d), 80P(2)(c), and 80G for A.Y. 2015-16 & 2016-17. The CPC, processing the return u/s 143(1), denied the deduction u/s 80P(2)(d), stating it was not claimed in the return, a finding upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee contended that the claim was made and reflected in the acknowledgement and computation, but a technical glitch caused it not to be properly reflected in the breakup of deductions.
Held
The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed claimed the deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) and the non-reflection in the breakup was due to a technical glitch, not a failure to claim. Therefore, the denial of deduction was incorrect. The CPC was directed to allow the assessee's claim for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) for both assessment years.
Key Issues
Whether the denial of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) by the CPC and CIT(A) was justified when the assessee claimed a technical glitch caused the deduction to be improperly reflected in the return's breakup, despite being correctly claimed elsewhere in the return and computation.
Sections Cited
250, 143(1), 80P(2)(d), 80P(2)(c), 80G, VI-A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA & SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR
Both appeals relate to the same assessee and are against separate orders passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), ADDL/JCIT(A), Thane (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), both dated 09.01.2025, passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax & 656/Ahd/2025 [Panchmahhal Dist. Co Op Milk Producers Union Ltd. Godhra vs. DCIT] A.Y. 2015-16 & 2016-17 - 2 – Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relating to Assessment Years (A.Ys.) 2015-16 & 2016-17.
At the outset itself, it was stated that issue involved in both the appeals was identical relating to the denial of claim of deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act by the CPC (Centralized Processing Centre) while processing the return of income filed by the assessee for the impugned year in terms of the provisions of Section 143(1) of the Act. Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the assessee is a co-operative society of milk producers and had claimed deduction of its income both u/s.80P(2)(d) as well as 80P(2)(c) of the Act. Drawing our attention to the facts of the case relating to A.Y 2015-16, he pointed out that the assessee had claimed deduction of Rs.1,15,07,363/- u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act and a deduction of Rs.50,000/- u/s.80P(2)(c) of the Act besides deduction u/s.80G of the Act of Rs.1,25,500/- resulting in total deduction claimed under chapter VI-A of the Act of Rs.1,16,82,863/-. The CPC however, he pointed out, denied the claim of deduction of Rs.1,1507,363/- u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act, which he pointed out was confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) noting that deduction to the said extent was not claimed by the assessee in its return of income.
Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the Ld.CIT(A)’s findings in this regard were grossly incorrect and that he had failed to appreciate the facts pointed out to him that it was not a case of claim not made by the assessee in its return of & 656/Ahd/2025 [Panchmahhal Dist. Co Op Milk Producers Union Ltd. Godhra vs. DCIT] A.Y. 2015-16 & 2016-17 - 3 – income but in fact the claim was made and duly reflected in the acknowledgement of return of income, computation of income and also in the total return of income dealing with claim of such deductions under chapter VIA of the Act. That it was only in the breakup of the claim of deduction, contained in the return of income, that the said claim of deduction u/s80P(2)(d) of the Act remained to be reflected, though it was included in the figure of total deduction claimed, and that too on account of technical glitch.
In this regard he drew our attention to the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act, pointing out therefrom that while the assessee had claimed deduction under chapter VIA of Rs.1,16,82,863/- the CPC had allowed deduction of only Rs.1,75,500/-. Our attention was thereafter drawn to the computation of income for the year placed at P.B 15-16 and it was pointed out therefrom the claim of deduction under chapter VIA comprised of: Rs.1,15,07,363/- u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act Rs.50,000/- u/s.80P(2)(c) of the Act Rs.1,25,500/- u/s.80G of the Act.
Our attention was thereafter drawn to the Acknowledgement of return of income filed by the assessee at P.14 pointing out the total deduction claimed by the assessee to be Rs.1,16,82,863/-. Thereafter attention was drawn to Schedule VIA of Return of Income at P.B 43 pointing out therefrom the figure of total deduction claimed under chapter VIA to be Rs. 1,16,82,863/-.
& 656/Ahd/2025 [Panchmahhal Dist. Co Op Milk Producers Union Ltd. Godhra vs. DCIT] A.Y. 2015-16 & 2016-17 - 4 – 6. Based on the above, computation of income, acknowledgement of return of income, and the total reflected in the schedule of return of income, the case made out by the Ld.Counsel for the assessee was that the assessee as a matter of fact did claim deduction of Rs.1,15,07,363/-u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act and the denial of the said deduction by the Ld.CIT(A) on account of his finding of the assessee not having claimed the same was grossly incorrect on facts.
Our attention was invited to the Schedule VIA of Return of Income at P.B 43 pointing out therefrom that in the breakup of deduction claimed under different sections of chapter VIA, only Rs.50,000/- was reflected against section 80P.This he contended was due to a technical glitch.
He, therefore, contended that the facts being evidently clear that the assessee did claim deduction of the entire amount in its return of income, the Ld. CIT(A) had confirmed the disallowance made by the CPC noting incorrect facts which therefore needed to be set aside.
Ld.Counsel for the assessee reiterated that in A.Y 16-17 also the denial of claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act was in the backdrop of identical facts and circumstances.
Ld. DR, however, supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A).
& 656/Ahd/2025 [Panchmahhal Dist. Co Op Milk Producers Union Ltd. Godhra vs. DCIT] A.Y. 2015-16 & 2016-17 - 5 – 11. Having heard the contention of both the parties, we find merit in the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that it is not a case of the assessee having not claimed deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act ,but on the contrary, the facts reveal that the assessee did claim such deduction and the basis with the Revenue authorities for holding that the assessee did not claim said deduction has been demonstrated sufficiently by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee to be on account of technical glitch in the return of income filed. This is evident from the facts demonstrated before us from the return of income filed that both the computation of the income of the assessee as also the acknowledgement of returned filed by the assessee the figure of entire deduction claimed by the assessee under chapter VI-A including the amount of deduction u/s.80P(2)(c) of Rs.50,000/- and that under 80P(2)(d) of Rs.1,1507,363/- was reflected. Even the details in the return of income of the claim of deduction under chapter VI-A, we have noted, reflect the total amount of deduction claimed correctly comprising both the aforestated deductions, however it is only the breakup of deduction in the return of income, which reflects only the deduction of Rs.50,000/-.
Considering the facts as above, we find merit in the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the assessee did claim deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act and there was no reason therefore to hold otherwise by the authorities below, while denying the said deduction. The assessee, we hold, has wrongly been denied deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act and we, therefore, & 656/Ahd/2025 [Panchmahhal Dist. Co Op Milk Producers Union Ltd. Godhra vs. DCIT] A.Y. 2015-16 & 2016-17 - 6 – direct the CPC to allow the assessee’s its claim of deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act both for A.Y 15-16 and A.Y 16-17 amounting to Rs.1,15,07,363/- & Rs.1,38,41,301/- respectively.
In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed.
This Order pronounced on 30/06/2025 Sd/- Sd/- (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 30/06/2025 S. K. SINHA True Copy आदेश क� �ितिल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 3. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 4. �वभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 5. 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,