SANTHIGRAM SERVICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO K280,ERATTAYAR IDUKKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THODUPUZHA

The case was called twice. None appeared on behest of the assessee. Therefore, we proceed to hear the appeal exparte qua the assessee.

The Revenue vehemently argues that both the lower authorities have rightly disallowed the assessee’s section 80P deduction claim once it was raised for the first time in a return filed in response to the 148 notice issued by the Assessing Officer. She quotes section 80A(5) of the Act that both the Santhigram SCS Limited learned authorities have rightly declined the assessee’s section 80P deduction claim in very terms. We note in this factual backdrop that the assessee had indeed filed it return claiming section 80P deduction for the first time in sections 148/147 proceedings. And that section 80A(5) of the Act nowhere distinguish between the return(s) filed under various provisions, i.e. section 139(1) or in section 148 or in any other proceedings; as the case may be. We accordingly invoke stricter interpretation as per Commissioner of Customs v. Dilip Kumr & Co. [2018] 9 SCC 1 (SC) (FB) that once section 80A(5) itself does not exclude “a return” filed u/s. 148 for the purpose of section 80P deduction, the assessee’s claim could not have been rejected in the lower proceedings. The assessee’s sole substantive ground of section 80P claim succeeds in principle and the learned Assessing Officer is directed to verify all the necessary facts for framing his consequential computation as per law.

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms.