CHHEDA HEIGHT CO-OP HSG SOC LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 26(1)(6) , MUMBAI
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against an order related to adjustments made under section 143(1) for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal on grounds of delay, stating the intimation was dated 21/07/2014, but the assessee claimed they received it on 02/02/2020.
Held
The Tribunal held that there was no delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) as the intimation was served on 02/02/2020 and the appeal was filed on 14/02/2020. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that prior to AY 2021-22, adjustments u/s 143(1) for deduction u/s 80P were not permissible, and the assessee's return was filed within the due date.
Key Issues
Whether the adjustment made by CPC under section 143(1) for disallowing deduction u/s 80P was permissible for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15, and whether the appeal filed before CIT(A) was within the limitation period.
Sections Cited
143(1), 80P, 139(1), 10AA, 80AIA, 80IAB, 80IB, 80IC, 80ID, 80IE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH
आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the assessee against separate impugned order of even date 10/05/2024, by Addl./JCIT (A)-9,Delhi in relation to the adjustment made u/s.143(1) for the A.Y.2013-14 and 2014-15.
2 ITA No. 3461 & 3462/MUM/2024 Chheda Heights Co. op Hsg. Soc. Ltd.
The common ground raised by the assessee in both the years are that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the ld. AO / CPC in disallowing the deduction u/s.80P vide intimation u/s.143(1) and thereby confirming the deduction of Rs.4,91,145/- in A.Y.2013-14 and Rs.9,84,335/- in A.Y.2014-15. 3. It is seen that ld. CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay that appeal has been filed belatedly. Before us, ld. Counsel submitted that intimation was dated 21/07/2014, however, assessee did not receive any such intimation and same was provided to the assessee on 02/02/2020. Once assessee itself has not received the intimation in the year 2014 and it is only when assessee made a request, then second intimation was issued and provided to the assessee. Thus, when assessee did not receive the intimation, then we hold that there was no delay in filing of the appeal before the ld. CIT (A) as intimation order was served to the assessee on 02/02/2020 and appeal was filed on 14/02/2020. 4. On merits, it is seen that that the CPC has made adjustment u/s.80P of Rs.4,91,145/- in A.Y.2013-14 and Rs.9,84,335/- in A.Y.2014-15 by disallowing the claim of deduction u/s.80P(2)(d). Before us, it has been contended that, the said adjustment u/s. 80P in A.Y.2013-14 and 2014-15 could not have been made because there was no such provision to make such adjustment and this issue is covered by the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Chandralok Co-operative Housing Society Limited
3 ITA No. 3461 & 3462/MUM/2024 Chheda Heights Co. op Hsg. Soc. Ltd. in ITA No.681/Mum/2024 dated 28/06/2024 wherein the Tribunal observed as under:- “6. Be that as may be the scope of adjustment u/s.143(1)(a) provides that adjustment can be made from Clause (i) to (vi). Sub- clause (v) which existed prior to 01/04/2021 only permitted adjustment u/s.10AA, 80AIA, 80IAB, 80IB, 80IC, 80ID or Section 80IE. There was no scope of making any prima facie adjustment u/s.80P. The amendment was brought in the statute to include Section 10AA or under any provision of Chapter VIA if the return of income has been furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of Section 139. Thus, prior to A.Y. 2021-22, no such adjustment could have been made. Moreover, here in this case as held above, the return of income was furnished within the due date prescribed u/s.139(1). Thus, the entire disallowance was beyond the scope of Section 143(1) itself. Accordingly, the disallowance made by the CPC and as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is set aside and assessee is entitled for reduction u/s.80P.”
Here in this case, due to date of filing of return was 30th September 2013 and 30th September 2014, whereas the CPC has made the adjustment on the ground that return itself has been filed belatedly treating the due date as 31st July. First of all, once it is a co-operative society, then it is required to file the audit report for which different time limit has been provided for filing the return of income under the Act, i.e., 30th September. Thus, this cannot be the ground for disallowing the claim of deduction. In any case, as held by the Tribunal in the aforesaid case prior to A.Y.2021-22, no such adjustment could have been made within the scope of Section 143(1). Accordingly, the adjustment made by the CPC is deleted for both the years.
4 ITA No. 3461 & 3462/MUM/2024 Chheda Heights Co. op Hsg. Soc. Ltd.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced on 31st December, 2024.
Sd/- Sd/- (GIRISH AGRAWAL) (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 31/12/2024 KARUNA, sr.ps
Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy//
BY ORDER,
(Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai
