TRIDEV-II CO. OP. HSG. SOC., MUMBAI vs. ITO-41(3)(3) , MUMBAI
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an order disallowing a deduction of Rs. 4,40,284/- under section 80P(2)(d) for AY 2014-15. The appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) due to a delay in filing, despite the assessee having filed a rectification application which was not acted upon.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay, considering the assessee's bonafide belief that the rectification would be processed. Furthermore, the adjustment made under section 143(1) for AY 2014-15 was not permissible as there was no provision for disallowing deduction u/s 80P at that time.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned, and if the adjustment made by the AO under section 143(1) disallowing deduction u/s 80P for AY 2014-15 was valid.
Sections Cited
143(1), 80P(2)(d)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH
आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against order dated 08/01/2024 passed by Addl. / JCIT(A)-1, Jaipur for A.Y.2014-15 in relation to adjustment made u/s.143(1) disallowing the claim the deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of Rs.4,40,284/-. 2. We find that ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals on the ground that there was a delay in filing of appeal for almost seven
2 ITA No.813/MUM/2024 Tridev – II Co. OP. HSG. SOC. years. It has been stated that assessee had filed rectification before the CPC on 27/08/2016 but no action was taken by the ld. AO / CPC till date. In a similar situation for A.Y.2019-20 and 2021-22 and 2022-23 rectification application has been accepted and demand has been cancelled on account of disallowance of deduction u/s.80P. However, for the A.Y.2014-15 no such rectification was passed and accordingly, the assessee was under bonafide belief that it will get relief from the CPC. Since assessee was waiting for the rectification which has not been disposed off and accordingly, it cannot be held that there was a reasonable cause or bonafide belief for not filing the appeal in time specially when similar rectification application has been accepted for A.Y. 2019-20 and 2021-22 whereas for the A.Y.2014-15 despite rectification was filed immediately after the intimation was received by the assessee. Thus, we hold that ld. CIT(A) should have condoned the appeal. 3. The assessee being a Coopertaive Housing Society and is eligbile for deduction u/s 80P. The CPC has made adjustment u/s.143(1) despite that return of income was filed within the due date and no reasons has been given as to why adjustment has been made. As per the provisions of scope of adjustment u/s.143(1)(a), no disallowance of deduction could have been made u/s.80P for the A.Y.2014-15 as there was no such provision for making disallowance u/s.143(1)(a) because the adjustment which was permissible was with respect to 10AA, 80AIA, 80IAB, 80IB, 80IC, 80ID or Section 80IE. It was only by the Finance Act 2021 w.e.f. A.Y.2021-22, now the prima facie
3 ITA No.813/MUM/2024 Tridev – II Co. OP. HSG. SOC. adjustment is permissible under Chapter VIA if the assessee has not filed the return of income on the due date. Thus, for the A.Y.2014-15 there was no provision for making such adjustment, Accordingly, the adjustment made by the ld. AO is deleted
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced on 28th Jun, 2024.
Sd/- Sd/- (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 28/06/2024 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
