Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SRI SANJAY GARG & SRI SANJAY AWASTHI
order
: July 24th, 2024 ORDER
Per Sanjay Awasthi, Accountant Member:
In this case it is seen that the appellant filed his return of income on 10.03.2022 declaring total income at Rs. “NIL”. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act'), determining total income at Rs. 1,49,42,730/-. It is seen that the appellant is a Cooperative Credit Society of which the members are the employees of CESC Ltd. Broadly, through communication dated 12.08.2022, the CPC, Bengaluru made the following disallowances: i) Rs. 1,27,271/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act.
I.T.A. No.: 701/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Electro Urban Urbay Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. ii) Rs. 1,48,15,454/- by denying the appellant’s claim u/s 80P(1)(2)(d) of the Act.
1.1. It is seen that before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Lucknow [hereinafter referred to as ld. 'CIT(A)'] the appellant had agreed to the disallowance of Rs. 1,27,271/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act but has vehemently challenged the denial of claim u/s 80P(1)(2)(d) of the Act. Thereafter, the ld. CIT(A) has allowed the claim u/s 80P of the Act through the following discussion:
6.8 In the present case, the assessment year in question is AY 2021-22, and the appellant filed the income tax return on 10/03/2022, The due date of furnishing of Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2021-22, which was 31st October 2021 under subsection (1) of section 139 of the Act, as extended to 30th November 2021 and 15th February 2022 by Circular No. 9/2021 dated 20.05.2021 and Circular No. 17/2021 dated 09.09.2021 respectively, is hereby further extended to 15th March, 2022; which is within the due date of filing the return, i.e., 31st October 2021, as per Section 139(1), and also beyond the extended deadline of 15th March, 2022, allowed for that relevant year. In accordance with the provisions of Section 80AC(ii) of the Act, which apply to AYs 2021-22 and onwards, the appellant is clearly eligible to claim the exemption under section 80P of the Act.
1.2. However, the appellant is aggrieved with this action of the ld. CIT(A) and has come before us through the following grounds of appeal:
“(1) That the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Lucknow was wrong in not adjudicating the specific Grounds of Appeal taken by the appellant through its Appeal filed against the Intimation dated 02/11/2022 issued u/s 143(1) by the CPC, Bengaluru. (2) That without prejudice to the contention raised in Ground No. 1 above, the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Lucknow erred in not holding that the CPC, Bengaluru should have increased the Deduction u/s 8oP(i)/(2)(a) by the sum of Rs.1,27,271 being the increase made to the Business Income of the appellant. (3) That without prejudice to the contention raised in Ground No (1) above, the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Lucknow erred in not holding that the CPC, Bengaluru had been wrong in disallowing Deduction of Rs.1,48,15, 454 claimed by the appellant u/s 8oP(l)/(2)(d) in relation to the interest income earned from Deposits with Cooperative Bank.
I.T.A. No.: 701/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Electro Urban Urbay Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. (4) That without prejudice to the contention raised in Ground No. (1) above, the Ld. Addl/JCIT(a)-2, Lucknow erred in not holding that the CPC, Bengaluru had been wrong in determining the Tax liability of the appellant at Rs.52,18,093. (5) That without prejudice to the contention raised in Ground No. (1) above, the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Lucknow erred in not directing the CPC, Bengaluru to allow Credit for TDS of Rs.11,88,194. (6) That without prejudice to the contention raised in Ground No. (1) above, the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Lucknow erred in not holing that the CPC, Bengaluru had been wrong in levying Interests of Rs.9,39,240 and Rs.2,63,509 under sections 234B and 234C respectively. (7) That without prejudice to the contention raised in Ground No.(i) above, the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Lucknow was wrong in not holding that the CPC, Bengaluru had been wrong in raising a Demand of Rs.65,25,000. (8) That the appellant craves leave to add, modify or withdraw any Ground or Grounds of Appeal before or at the time of the Hearing of the Appeal.”
2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee explained that while the ld. CIT(A) had granted relief on the ground that the return of income was filed within the time stipulated for a valid claim u/s 80P of the Act, but the reasons sought for relief were entirely different as far as the assessee is concerned. Thus, while the asked for relief is seen to have been granted but the appellant is still aggrieved because it has been granted on entirely different grounds than whatever was averred before the Ld. CIT(A). It has been further averred that once the claim u/s 80P of the Act was allowed then the sum of Rs. 1,27,271/- considered for disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act should also have been considered for relief u/s 80P of the Act. Furthermore, there is one ground of appeal which asks for allowing credit of TDS for Rs. 11,88,194/-. Also, the charging of interest u/s 234B & 234C of the Act have been challenged as a consequence of the action of ld. AO.
3. The ld. D/R relied on the order of ld. CIT(A).
4. We have carefully considered the submissions before us and still it is understood that once relief u/s 80P of the Act was allowed to the appellant, albeit on entirely different grounds then what were canvased before the ld. CIT(A), there should have been a consequential direction for allowing relief of Page 3 of 5 I.T.A. No.: 701/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Electro Urban Urbay Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. the addition made u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act also. It is seen that even though the appellant had filed detailed submissions before the ld. CIT(A) for allowing claim u/s 80P of the Act but at that stage, the ld. CIT(A) granted relief on the basis of the consideration that the return of income was filed on time. It is also seen that the consequential directions regarding charge of interest u/s 234B & 234C of the Act, allowing credit for TDS and considering the amount added u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act were not given clearly in the impugned order. Accordingly, we direct the ld. CIT(A) to re-examine the claim of the appellant and consider his arguments for granting relief claimed u/s 80P(1)(2)(d) of the Act. It is also directed that the disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act should be considered under the overall ambit of Section 80P of the Act, in case it is allowed and also the credit of TDS should definitely be available to the appellant. Needless to say, the charging of interest u/s 234B & 234C of the Act would be consequential upon any amount determined after giving effect to the first appellate order.