M/S KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE APEX BANK EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CPC) , BANGALORE

The assessee is a credit co-operative society and it filed its return of income for AY 2011-12 on 30-09-2011 declaring NIL income. According to the assessee, it is eligible for deduction u/s 80P of the Act and the same was & 462/Bang/2019 2 also claimed in the return of income. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) on 17.02.2012, wherein the deduction u/s 80P of the Act was not granted. According to the assessee the intimation was not served upon it and further the outstanding demand also came to the notice of the assessee later. According to the assessee, it sought for a copy of intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act and the same was granted to it only in 2017. The assessee filed a rectification petition u/s 154 of the Act seeking deduction u/s 80P of the Act before Centralised Processing Centre (CPC). The CPC replied that the assessee has not claimed any deduction u/s 80P of the Act in the return of income and hence the new claim could not be made in the rectification petition filed u/s 154 of the Act. Accordingly the CPC rejected the rectification petition filed by the assessee.

The assessee preferred appeals against intimation given u/s 143(1) of the Act as well as against the rectification order passed u/s 154 of the Act.

Before Ld CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the appeal is delayed by 64 days. Though the Ld CIT(A) condoned the said delay, yet he noticed that the intimation given u/s 143(1) of the Act is dated 17-02-2012 and the appeal has been filed before him against the copy of intimation given to the assessee on 13.12.2017. Accordingly he took the view that the delay of about 6 years could not be condoned. With regard to the claim made u/s 80P of the Act, the Ld CIT(A) took the view that the same can be claimed by the assessee by filing revised return only. Accordingly he rejected the appeal filed against the intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act.

In respect of appeal filed against the order passed u/s 154 of the Act against the rectification petition filed by the assessee, the Ld CIT(A) held that the said order does not call for any interference, as the new claim could not be made through rectification petition. He also took support of the order passed by him on the appeal filed against intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act and dismissed appeal of the assessee.

We shall now take up the appeal filed in 143(1) of the Act. It is the submission of the assessee that it did not receive intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act initially and it obtained copy of the intimation only when it came to know & 462/Bang/2019 3 that there is some outstanding demand. The copy of intimation was obtained by the assessee in December, 2017 and accordingly it has proceeded to file appeal before Ld CIT(A). The submission made by the assessee were not proved to be wrong by the revenue and hence we are of the view that there is reasonable cause for the delay in filing appeal before Ld CIT(A) and accordingly we condone the delay.

With regard to the claim made by the assessee u/s 80P of the Act, the Ld A.R submitted that the profit and loss account was duly filled in the return of income filed electronically and the Net profit was correctly shown at Rs.32.93 lakhs in row 43 of “Part A- P & L”. However, the machine took the business income as NIL in “Schedule BP” and consequently the deduction u/s 80P was also shown as NIL in column “h” of Schedule VIA. The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee does not have any control over the software and these mistakes have occurred due to some glitch in the computer system or in operating the same. Accordingly he submitted that the assessee should be allowed deduction u/s 80P of the Act. He submitted that the Tribunal has held that the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80P of the Act in other years and also furnished copies of order passed by the Tribunal.

The Ld D.R, on the contrary, submitted that the assessee has shown the deduction u/s 80P as NIL and hence the same was not allowed in the intimation given u/s 143(1) of the Act. Further there is delay in filing rectification petition also and in any case, new claims cannot be made through rectification petition.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80P of the Act. There is also no dispute that the assessee has filed the Profit and Loss account details correctly in the return of income filed electronically. For the reasons unknown to everyone, the business income was shown as NIL in the return of income and consequently, the deduction u/s 80P was also shown as NIL. While processing return of income, the profit shown by the assessee in the Profit and Loss account was picked up by the computer system and accordingly a demand was raised upon the & 462/Bang/2019 4 assessee. Admittedly, the deduction u/s 80P could not be allowed, since there was no claim in the return of income.

Under these set of facts, we are of the view that the claim made by the assessee for deduction u/s 80P of the Act may be considered as a New Claim. As per the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd (284 ITR 323), the Tribunal is empowered to admit new claims. Accordingly we admit the claim for deduction u/s 80P of the Act made by the assessee. Since it requires examination at the end of AO, we restore the same to his file for examining the same, after affording adequate opportunity to the assessee.

Since we have adjudicated the appeal relating to intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act, we are of the view that the appeal relating to rectification petition does not require adjudication. Accordingly we dismiss the same.

In the result, the appeal numbered as ITA 461/Bang/2019 is treated as allowed and the other appeal of the assessee is dismissed.