PERAMBRA VANITHA SAHAKARANA SANGHAM,CALICUT vs. ITO WARD 2(3), CALICUT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 93/COCH/2023Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 September 2024AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI AMARJIT SINGH (Accountant Member)3 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 143(1)(a)(v) allowing disallowance of Section 80P deduction was effective from 01.04.2021. Therefore, it could not be applied retrospectively to the assessment year 2018-19.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80P for AY 2018-19. The Assessing Officer disallowed this deduction during the processing under Section 143(1)(a). The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of Section 80P deduction under Section 143(1)(a) was valid for AY 2018-19, given the retrospective applicability of the amendment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P,Section 143(1)(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH : COCHIN

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH

Hearing: 21.08.2024Pronounced: 25.09.2024

This assessee’s appeal, for assessment year 2018- 2019, arise against the CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1047674857(1), dated 28.11.2022, in proceedings u/s.143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2 ITA.No.93/COCH./2023 Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

2.

It appears at the outset that there is hardly had any need for us to give detailed consideration to the assessee’s sole substantive grievance seeking to reverse both the learned lower authorities action disallowing its section 80P deduction claimed by way of section 143(1)(a) processing as upheld in the lower appellate ex-parte discussion. This is for the precise reason that the legislature has amended section 143(1)(a)(v) enabling provision to this effect by way of amendment in the Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021 whereas the impugned assessment order is AY 2018-19. Meaning thereby that both the learned lower authorities could not have invoked s.143(1)(a)(v) “processing” retrospectively for disallowing assessee’s impugned section 80P deduction. We accept the assessee’s instant sole substantive ground in very terms. Ordered accordingly.

3.

Delay of 252 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) is condoned in light of Collector, Land Acquisition vs., MST Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) having settled the law

3 ITA.No.93/COCH./2023 long back that all such technical aspects must make a way for the cause of substantial justice.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 25.09.2024.

More judgments on Section 80P

All 5,069 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →