Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed their income tax return for AY 2019-20 on 05.10.2019, claiming a deduction under Section 80IA. The assessee also furnished the required audit report in Form 10CCB. However, the CPC's intimation under Section 143(1) disallowed the deduction, treating the due date for filing the return as 31.08.2019 instead of the extended due date of 31.10.2019, leading to a demand and levy of interest and late filing fees.
Held
The Tribunal held that the requirement to file the audit report along with the return of income is directory and not mandatory. The assessee had filed the return and the audit report within the extended due date. The denial of deduction under Section 80IA during the processing of the return under Section 143(1) was not justified.
Key Issues
Whether the deduction under Section 80IA was rightly denied by treating the due date for filing the return as 31.08.2019 instead of the extended due date of 31.10.2019, and whether the audit report filed along with the return was mandatory.
Sections Cited
143(1), 80IA, 139(1), 10CCB, 234A, 234B, 234C, 234F
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY
PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal by assessee is directed against order of NFAC for the assessment year 2019-20 dated 21.3.2024. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the Intimation made u/s 143(1) of the Act. The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) should have on the facts and circumstances of the case, quashed the impugned Intimation as bad in law and void ab initio. 2. In any case without prejudice, the learned Assistant Director of Income Tax (CPC), Bangalore has erred in making an adjustment u/s. 143(1) which is not permitted by law. Such adjustment being bad in law is liable to be quashed. 3. Without prejudice, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the denial of deduction u/s 801A of the Act as done by the Assessing officer on the ground that as the appellant is not liable for audit u/s 44AB of the Act, the due date for filing the return of income in the case of the appellant is 31.08.2019 only and not 31.10.2019. (extended) The conclusion drawn by authorities below is erroneous both on facts and law applicable and is to be disregarded. 4. In any case, the authorities below have erred in not appreciating the fact that as the appellant is liable for audit under the provisions of Income tax Act, the applicable due date for filing the return of income is as per the explanation 2 to
ITA No.604/Bang/2024 Arathi Vinay Patil, Bangalore Page 2 of 14 section 139(1) of the Act. The appellant having correctly filed the return of income within the extended due date, is entitled to deduction/s 801A of the Act and same is to be allowed to the appellant. 5. In any case and without prejudice, even assuming and without conceding that even if there is a delay in filing the audit report in form 10 CCB, the requirement of filing the audit report being not a mandatory but a directory requirement u/ s 801A(7) of the Act is to be condoned and the deduction as claimed by the appellant is to be granted to the appellant. 6. The appellant denies the liability to pay Interest u/s 234A&234B, 234C and 234F of the Act. The interest having been levied erroneously is to be deleted. 7. In view of the above and on other grounds to be adduced at the time of hearing, it is requested that the Intimation/order as made/passed be quashed or atleast, the appellant be allowed the deduction u/s 801A of the Act as claimed, returned income be accepted and the interest levied be also deleted.
Facts of the case are that there was an intimation made u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for AY 2019- 20 vide DIN No. CPC/1920/A3/197242969 dated 15.05.2020 raising a demand of Rs.11,26,760/-.
2.1. For the year, the assessee had filed return of income on 05.10.2019 declaring an income of Rs.36,34,320/-. This income comprised of:
a) Income from House property (64,149.00) b) Income from Business 50,04,395.00 c) Income from other sources 38,58,473.00 ---------------- 87,98,719.00 Less: Deduction u/s. 80 C 1,50,000.00 80 TTA 10,000.00 80 IA 50,04,395.00 ---------------- 56,64,395.00 ---------------- 36,34,320.00 ==========
ITA No.604/Bang/2024 Arathi Vinay Patil, Bangalore Page 3 of 14
2.2. The book profit computed as per the provisions of section 115JC of the Act was Rs.87,98,719/- and the tax was paid accordingly since the tax on regular income was less than taxes on book profit.
2.3 The assessee is engaged in the business of generation of power through windmill. For the year, the assessee had earned profits of Rs. 50,04,395/- from the eligible unit and the deduction u/s.80IA was claimed after getting the books of accounts audited and obtaining audit report in form 10CCB from auditor for claiming deduction.
2.4. As the books of accounts of the assessee were liable for audit under 80IA(7) of the Act, the applicable due date for filing the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act was 31.10.2019. Accordingly, the return of income for the year was filed on 05.10.2019 which was said to be with in the due date for filing the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. Even in the return of income filed, the due date was clearly mentioned as 31/10/2019 only. Along with the return of income filed, the assessee also e-filed the audit report in Form 10CCB.
2.5. The return of income filed was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and the intimation made, the due date for filing return of income is taken as 31.08.2019 and consequently the deduction of Rs.50,04,395/- claimed u/s. 80IA of the Act was not allowed. In the intimation made out the regular income of the assessee is computed at Rs.86,28,720/-.
2.6 Because of this increase in income, the tax is calculated on normal income. Further, in the intimation, the following interest is levied.
ITA No.604/Bang/2024 Arathi Vinay Patil, Bangalore Page 4 of 14 Interest u/s. 234 A Rs. 24,970.00 Interest u/s. 234 B Rs. 1,57,446.00 Interest u/s. 234 C Rs. 1,08,799.00
2.7. Further, late filing fee of Rs. 5,000/- is also levied u/s.234F. Therefore, instead of refund of Rs. 9,640/- as per return of income, a demand of Rs.11,26,763/- has been determined.
2.8. According to assessee, in the intimation, the following error /description is noted :- “In schedule VI-A, under Part-C deduction in respect of certain incomes, In Sl. No. 2 a deduction is claimed under section 80IA, without filing the corresponding schedule 80IA / Form 10CCB or Form 10CCB is not filed within due date”.
2.9. In this regard, the assessee submitted that all the details with respect to deduction claimed u/s 80IA of the Act were duly filled in along with the corresponding schedule 80IA/Form 10CCB in the return of income filed. Assessee submitted that it is clear from the return of income filed that all the details with respect to deduction claimed u/s 80IA of the Act along with details of form 10CCB are duly filled in. Therefore, there is no error in the return of income filed at all.
2.10. With respect to Form 10CCB is not filed within due date, the assessee submitted that in order to claim deduction u/s 80IA of the Act, the assessee has to get his books of accounts audited and furnish the audit report in prescribed form. In this regard, the assessee drew our attention to the portion of section 80IA(7) of the Act as under:
“(7) 48[The deduction] under sub-section (1) from profits and gains derived from an 49[undertaking] shall not be admissible unless the accounts of the 49[undertaking] for the previous year relevant to the assessment year for which the deduction is claimed have been audited by an accountant, as defined in the Explanation below sub-section (2) of section 288, and the assessee furnishes, along with his return of income, the report of such audit in the prescribed form50 duly signed and verified by such accountant”(emphasis supplied)
ITA No.604/Bang/2024 Arathi Vinay Patil, Bangalore Page 5 of 14
2.11 According to assessee, the due date to file the return of income as per section 139(1) of the Act in the case of the assessee is 30/09/2019 as assessee’s books of accounts were liable for audit u/s 80IA(7) of the Act. 2.12. The due date to file Income tax return as well as audit reports was extended upto 31/10/2019. The assessee drew our attention to the Circular extending the due date as under: “Order under Section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961
The ‘due-date’ for filing income-tax returns for Assessment-Year 2019-20 is 30.09.2019 for assessees covered under clause( a) of Explanation 2 to sub- section(1) of section 139 of the Income tax Act,1961 (‘Act’). It has been represented that some of the taxpayers are facing difficulties in filing their reports of audit and income- tax returns due to various reasons including availability of limited time with tax professionals for completion of audits, floods in certain parts of the country etc. 2. On due consideration of representations from various stakeholders for extending the due date, being 30th September, 2019, for filing of income-tax returns and various reports of audit pertaining to assessment year 2019-20 for assessees’ covered under clause (a) of Explanation 2 to section 139(1) of the Act read with relevant provisions of the Act and Income-tax Rules, the Central Board of Direct Taxes, in exercise of its powers conferred under section 119 of the Act, hereby extends the ‘due-date’, for filing income-tax returns as well as all reports of audit (which are required to be filed by the said specified due date), from 30th September, 2019 to 31st October, 2019. (emphasis supplied). However, there shall be no extension of the due date for purpose of Explanation 1 to section 234A (interest for defaults in furnishing return) of the Act and the assessee shall remain liable for payment of interest as per provisions of section 234A of the Act.”
2.13 Thus, the assessee submitted that as per the above circular, the due date for filing the return of income and furnishing the audit report was extended up to 31/10/2019. The assessee filed the return of income on 05/10/2019 and even the audit report in form 10CCB was filed on 05/10/2019 itself i.e., along with the return of income filed. Thus, the assessee had complied with the provisions of section 80IA(7) r.w.s. 139(1) of the Act. There is no delay in either filing the return of income or the audit report in form 10CCB of the Act. However, assessee submitted that in the Intimation made, the due
ITA No.604/Bang/2024 Arathi Vinay Patil, Bangalore Page 6 of 14 date for filing the return of income was mentioned as 31/08/2019 which is not correct. On this erroneous assumption, late filing fee of Rs. 5000 u/s 234F is also levied. There is no delay in filing the return of income at all. The return of income as well as the audit report in form 10CCB have been filed within the extended due date.
2.15. In any case, assuming and without conceding that there is a delay in filing the audit report in form 10CCB, the requirement that audit report should be furnished along with return of income being not a mandatory but a directory requirement under section 80-IA(7), and such requirement would stand satisfied if audit report is furnished during assessment proceedings. In this regard, the assessee relied on following case laws:
PCIT VS Surya Merchants Ltd. [2016] 72 taxmann.com 16 (Allahabad) 2. CIT v. ACE Multitaxes Systems (P.) LTd. v. [2009] 317 ITR 207 (KAR) 3. CIT v. Shahzedanand Charity Trust [1997] 228 ITR 292/[1998] (Punjab and Haryana) 4. Murali Export House v. CIT [1999] 238 ITR 257 (Calcutta) 5. CIT v. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd. [2009] 317 ITR 249/178 Taxman 422 (Delhi) 6. CIT v. Medicaps Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 554 .(Madhya Pradesh)
2.16. The assessee submitted that his case is much stronger as there is no delay either in filing the return of income nor in filing the audit report in form 10CCB of the Act. The denial of deduction claimed u/s 80IA(7) of the Act amounting to Rs. 50,04,395/-, being erroneous be deleted and the consequential levy of interest as well as late filing fee of Rs.5,000/- u/s 234F of the Act be deleted and the refund as claimed in the return of income be allowed along with the Interest. 2.17 NFAC not agreeing with the contention of the assessee, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Against this assessee is once again in appeal before us.
ITA No.604/Bang/2024 Arathi Vinay Patil, Bangalore Page 7 of 14 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. In this case, assessee filed the return of income for the assessment year 2019-20 on 5.10.2019. According to the ld. D.R., the due date for filing return of income was expired on 31.7.2019. However, the ld. A.R. submitted that the regular due date of filing return of income by assessee u/s 139(1) of the Act was up to 30.9.2019, however, it was extended by CBDT up to 31.10.2019. Hence, the revised due date is applicable to assessee for the reason that assessee was required to file audit report for claiming deduction u/s 80IA of the Act in Form 10CCB. As such, us 80IA(7) states Form No.10CCB is required to be filed after audit by accountant as defined in the explanation below sub-section (2) of section 288. He also drew our attention to the explanation to section 139(1) of the Act, which reads as follows: “Explanation 2.—In this sub-section, "due date" means,— where the assessee 97[other than an assessee referred to in clause (aa)] (a) is— a company 98[***]; or (i) (ii) a person (other than a company) whose accounts are required to be audited under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force; or (iii) a working partner of a firm whose accounts are required to be audited under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force, the 99[30th day of September] of the assessment year; (emphasis supplied) 1[(aa) in the case of an assessee 2[who] is required to furnish a report referred to in section 92E, the 30th day of November of the assessment year;]”
3.1 On this reason, she submitted that when the assessee required to file return u/s 139(1) of the Act and to claim deduction u/s 80IA, the extended date of filing return is available to assessee up to 31.10.2019. As such, in our opinion, the deduction u/s 80IA of the Act cannot be denied on the reason that assessee has not filed return of income within due date as mentioned u/s 139(1) of the Act in the assessment year 2019-20.
ITA No.604/Bang/2024 Arathi Vinay Patil, Bangalore Page 8 of 14 3.2 Further, in the case of Sanjay Kukreja in ITA No.652/Del/2023 for the AY 2019-20 dated 30.1.2024, the Delhi Bench of Tribunal held as under: 5. Heard rival submissions. The only issue is to be decided is as to whether the Form 10CCB is mandatorily to be filed along with the return or the due date specified u/s 139(1) of the Act for claiming deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. We observe that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Contimeters Electricals Pvt. Ltd. (supra) held that the requirement of filing the audit report along with the return is not mandatory but directory and that if the audit report is filed at any time before framing of assessment the requirement of section 80IA(7) would be met observing as under:
“According to the Commissioner of Income Tax since no audit report, duly verified and signed in the prescribed Form no.10CCB under Rule 18BBB had been furnished along with the return, the condition for claiming deduction had not been satisfied and, therefore, the action of the Assessing Officer in allowing rebate u/s 80-IA was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. After issuance of the notice the Commissioner of Income Tax passed the order dated 29.03.2007 whereby he held that he was fully satisfied that the assessment which had been completed by the Assessing Officer was prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and that it was erroneous in as much as the assessee had not satisfied the conditions laid down u/s 80-IA and consequently the deduction under that section for the sum of Rs.14,27,351/- had been wrongly allowed. The CIT(A), therefore, cancelled the assessment which had been earlier framed and directed the AO to complete the assessment as per law, in terms of the directions given in the said order. Being aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal which was allowed by the Tribunal by virtue of the impugned order. The Tribunal took the view that the provisions of section 80IA (7) with regard to filing of the audit report along with the return were not mandatory and were merely directory. In coming to such conclusion, the Tribunal referred to the decisions of the Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries, 201 ITR 325 (Guj.). In that decision the provisions of Section 80J(6A) were considered. The wording of Section 80J(6A) is similar to that of section 80-IA (7) which is in issue in the present appeal. The Gujarat High Court took the view that the word ‘shall’ which occurs in section 80J(6A) be read as ‘may’ and that the requirement of filing of an audit report along with the return was only to be taken as directory in nature. The Gujarat High Court took the view that in case the audit report is submitted at any time before the framing of the assessment, there
ITA No.604/Bang/2024 Arathi Vinay Patil, Bangalore Page 9 of 14 would be substantial compliance with the provisions of Section 80J(6A).
The Tribunal also relied on the decision of the Madras High Court in CIT vs. A.N. Arunachalam, 208 ITR 481 (Mad.), which, again, while considering the provisions of Section 80J(6A), took the same view as that of the Gujarat High Court.
We notice that there are other decisions of other Courts taking the same view. The decisions being, CIT vs. Shivanand Electricals (1994) 209 ITR 63 (Bombay); Zenith Processing Mills vs. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 721 (Guj.); Cit vs. Jayant Patel (2001) 248 ITR 199 (Mad.) and CIT vs. Mahalaxmi Rice Factory (2007) 294 ITR 631 (P&H). In view of this long line on decisions of various High Courts in considering the provisions of Section 80J(6A) which are similar to the provisions of Section 80IA(7), we feel that the Tribunal has arrived at the correct conclusion that the requirement of filing the audit report along with the return is not mandatory but directory and that if the audit report is filed at any time before the framing of the assessment, the requirement of section 80IA(7) would be met.” 6. We find that similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. AKS Alloys Pvt. Ltd. (supra), wherein it has been held as under: “5. In so far as it relates to the substantial question of law (1) is concerned, namely, whether the filing of audit report in Form 10CCB is mandatory, it is well settled by a number of judicial precedents that before the assessment is completed, the declaration could be filed. In fact, the said issue came to be decided by the Karnataka High Court in the case in CIT v. ACE Multitaxes Systems (P.) LTD. [2009] 317 ITR 207 (Kar.), wherein it was held that when a relief is sought for under Section 80IB of the Act, there is no obligation on the part of the assessee to file return accompanied by the audit report, thereby, holding that the same is not mandatory. Therefore, it is clear that before the assessment is completed if such report is filed, no fault could be found against the assessee. That was also the view of the Delhi High Court in the case in CIT v. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd. [2009] 317 ITR 249/ 178 Taxman 422 (Delhi), wherein the Delhi High Court, by following the judgements of the Madras High Court in CIT v. A.N. Arunachalam [1994] 208 ITR 481 / 75 Taxman 529 and in CIT v.Jayant Patel [2001] 248 ITR 199/ 117 Taxman 707 (Mad.) held that the filing of audit report along with the return was not mandatory but directory and that if the audit report was filed at
ITA No.604/Bang/2024 Arathi Vinay Patil, Bangalore Page 10 of 14 any time before the framing of the assessment, the requirement of the provisions of the Act should be held to have been met. 6. That is also the consistent view of the other High Courts, including the High Court of Bombay in CIT v. Shivanand Electronics [1994] 209 ITR 63 / 75 Taxman 93 (Bom.), apart from Gujarat High Court in Zenith Processing Mills v. CIT [1996] 219 ITR 721 (Guj.) and Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Maholaxmi Rice Factory [2007] 294 ITR 631/ 1.63 Taxman 565 (Punj. & Har). 7. The Calcutta High Court in the case in the CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 503/r20031 126 Taxman 435 (Cal.) has also concurred with the said view which was followed by the Tribunal in this case. 8. Mr. T. Ravikumar, the learned counsel for the appellant is not able to produce any other judgement contrary to the above said views consistently taken. 9. In the light of the above, by virtue of hierarchy of judgements which are against the Revenue, the substantial question of law (1) would not arise at all for consideration.” 7. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Surya Merchands Ltd. 387 ITR 105 and the Hon’ble High Court of Uttrakhand in the case of CIT Vs. Sanjay Kumar Bansal 35 taxmann.com 514, and Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. ACE Multi Taxes Systems Pvt. Ltd. 317 ITR 207. The ratios of the above decision squarely applying to the facts of the case, we hold that filing of audit report in Form 10CCB before the due date for filing of return of income u/s 139(1) is only directory and not mandatory for the year under consideration. Thus, we direct the AO to allow deduction claimed u/s 80IA of the Act. Grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.”
3.3 Even otherwise, while processing return u/s 143(1) of the Act, the deduction u/s 80IA of the Act cannot be denied as this assessment not falls u/s 143(1) of the Act. For this purpose, we rely on the judgement of coordinate bench of Ahmedabad in the case of Aliudepur Seva & Others in ITA No.269, 276 &277/Rjt/2022 dated 24.2.2023 for the AY 2019-20, wherein held as under:
ITA No.604/Bang/2024 Arathi Vinay Patil, Bangalore Page 11 of 14 6. “We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the materials available on record. It is apparent from the Ld. NFAC order when the assessee has clearly pointed out the amendment in Section 143(1) made by Finance Act, 2021 which is not applicable for the present assessment year 2019-2020. However the same was not been considered by the Ld. NFAC and erroneously dismissed the assessee’s appeal.
6.1 The Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in Lunidhar Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd. (cited supra) considered the above amendment and held as follows: 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. In the instant facts, admittedly the assessee did not file return of income within the time permissible under section 139(1) of the Act. However, the assessee filed its return of income belatedly on 30-11-2020 and claimed deduction of Rs. 2,22,704/- under section 80P of the Act. The issue for consideration before us is that whether once the return of income is filed beyond the prescribed date under section 139(1) of the Act, can the deduction under section 80P of the Act be denied to the assessee, by way of adjustment under section 143(1) of the Act. On going through the statutory provisions, we observe that 80AC of the Act provides that no such deduction under section 80P of the Act shall be allowed to an assessee unless he furnishes a return of his income on or before the due date specified under section 139(1) w.e.f. assessment year 2018-19 onwards. However, section 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act provides that disallowance of deduction claimed under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.—Deductions in respect of certain incomes" (which includes deduction under section 80P of the Act), can be made if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139. This amendment has been introduced w.e.f. 1-4-2021. Accordingly, the above amendment would not apply to the impugned assessment year. Further, section 143(1)(ii) of the Act permits adjustment in case of an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return. However, Explanation to the aforesaid section specifies the following cases where the claim made in the return of income can be said to be “incorrect” for the purposes of this sub-section:
(a) "an incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return" shall mean a claim, on the basis of an entry, in the return,— of an item, which is inconsistent with another entry of the (i) same or some other item in such return; in respect of which the information required to be furnished (ii) under this Act to substantiate such entry has not been so furnished; or in respect of a deduction, where such deduction exceeds (iii) specified statutory limit which may have been expressed as monetary amount or percentage or ratio or fraction
ITA No.604/Bang/2024 Arathi Vinay Patil, Bangalore Page 12 of 14
7.1 A joint reading of the above provisions makes it evident that the claim of deduction under section 80P of the Act cannot be allowed the assessee, if the assessee does not file its return of income within the due date stipulated under section 139(1) of the Act w.e.f. assessment year 2018-19 onwards. However, we also note that amendment has been introduced in section 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act to provide that the claim of deduction under section 80P of the Act can be denied to the assessee, in case the assessee does not file its return of income within the time prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act with effect from 01-04-2021 and does not apply to the impugned assessment year i.e. assessment year 2019-20 relevant to financial year 2018-19. Accordingly, in our considered view, denial of claim under section 80P of the Act would not come within the purview of prima facie adjustment under section 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act, for the simple reason that the section was not in force during the period under consideration i.e. assessment year 2019- 20. 7.2 The second issue for consideration is that whether the case of the assessee would fall within the purview of prima facie adjustment under section 143(1)(a)(ii) (an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return). In our view, the scope of the adjustments that can be made under the said provision has been elaborated in the Explanation to the aforesaid section, which does not include denial of deduction claimed by the assessee in case the assessee does not furnish its return of income within the date stipulated under section 139(1) of the Act. The Explanation to the said section specifically provides for cases/instances when the claim made by the assessee could be said to be “incorrect”. Therefore, in our considered view, the case of the assessee would also not fall within the purview of prima facie adjustment under section 143(1)(a)(ii) (an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return).
7.3 We note that in the case of Chirakkal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Kannur v. CIT 2016] 68 taxmann.com 298 (Kerala), the Kerala High Court held that a return filed by assessee beyond period stipulated under section 139(1) or 139(4) or under section 142(1) or section 148 can also be accepted and acted upon for entertaining claim raised under section 80P provided further proceedings in relation to such assessments are pending in statutory hierarchy of adjudication in terms of provisions of Act. In the case of ASR Engg. & Projects Ltd. [2019] 111 taxmann.com 49 (Hyderabad - Trib.), the ITAT held that to be eligible to make claim under section 80-IA or any other section of Chapter VI A, assessee should have filed return of income under section 139(1) and even if it did not make claim for deduction in original return and subsequently file revised return making such claim, its claim for deduction under section 80-IA is maintainable. Therefore, where assessee had filed return under section 139(1), it was entitled to claim deduction under section 80-IA even if such claim was not made in
ITA No.604/Bang/2024 Arathi Vinay Patil, Bangalore Page 13 of 14 original return but subsequently in revised return filed in response to notice issued under section 153A. In the case of Lanjani Co-Operative Agri Service Society Ltd. (CPC) v. DCIT [2023] 146 taxmann.com 468 (Chandigarh - Trib.), the ITAT held that the enabling provisions of sub- clause (v) of section 143(1) providing for disallowance of deduction under section 80P due to late filing of return having been introduced by Finance Act, 2021 effective from 1-4-2021, disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80P during relevant years 2018-19 and 2019-20 on grounds of late filing of return was unjustified 7.4 We note that the instant case, there was a delay in filing the return of income by the assessee for the assessment year 2019-20 and return of income was filed within due date permissible u/s 139(4) of the Act, in which the claim for deduction u/s 80P of the Act was made. Therefore, looking into the totality of facts, we are of the view that claim of deduction u/s 80P of the Act cannot be denied to the assessee only on the basis that the assessee did not file return of income its return of income within due date u/s 139(1) of the Act, in light of the discussion and judicial precedents highlighted above. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
6.2. Respectfully following the above Co-ordinate Bench decisions, we have no hesitation in holding that the assessee cannot be denied the deduction u/s. 80P of the Act on the ground that the assessee did not file the Return of Income within the due date prescribed u/s. 139(1) of the Act under proceedings made u/s. 143(1) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2019-20.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed.
ITA Nos. 276 and 277/Rjt/2022 are an identical nature and therefore for the reasonings stated in ITA No. 269/Rjt/2022 will be squarely applicable. Thus the appeals filed by the assessees are also allowed.”
3.4 In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the denial of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act while processing the return of income u/s 143(1) of the Act is not justified. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.
ITA No.604/Bang/2024 Arathi Vinay Patil, Bangalore Page 14 of 14
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 13th May, 2024
Sd/- Sd/- (Keshav Dubey) (Chandra Poojari) Judicial Member Accountant Member
Bangalore, Dated 13th May, 2024. VG/SPS Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 5 Guard file By order
Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.