CENTRAL BANK STAFF CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 378/NAG/2022Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 April 2024AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)4 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) disallowing Chapter VI-A deductions for delayed filing was inserted by the Finance Act, 2021, with prospective effect from 01.04.2021. As the assessment year in question is 2018-19, the disallowance was not sustainable in law.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal challenges the rejection of its Section 80P deduction claim for AY 2018-19. The claim was rejected during processing under Section 143(1)(a)(v) for not filing the return within the due date prescribed under Section 139(1).

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of Section 80P deduction under Section 143(1)(a)(v) for delayed filing is applicable for AY 2018-19, given the prospective nature of the amendment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P,Section 143(1)(a)(v),Section 139(1),Section 80AC

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, NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH :NAGPUR [VIRTUAL HEARING]

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 21.03.2024Pronounced: 16.04.2024

ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2018-19, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021- 22/1042282471(1), dated 31.03.2022, involving proceedings u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee’s sole substantive grievance raised herein challenges correctness of both the learned lower authorities action rejecting it’s sec.80P deduction claim by way of “processing” u/sec.143(1)(a)(v) of the Act for not having filed return within the “due date” prescribed u/sec.139(1) of the Act.

1.

2 ITA.No.378/NAG./2022 3. It further emerges that the instant issue is no more res integra for the precise reason that the Finance Act, 2021 had inserted the necessary amendment to this effect w.e.f. 01.04.2021 carrying prospective operation only whereas we are in assessment year 2018-2019. And that this tribunal’s recent coordinate bench order in ITA.No.62/NAG./2022 ITO vs. Nagpur Zilla Parishad Primary Shikshah Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Nagpur has rejected the Revenue’s very contentions as under :

“3. Learned CIT-DR vehemently reiterated the Revenue’s above extracted pleadings that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding the assessee eligible for it’s sec.80P deduction despite the fact that it had not filed it’s return within the “due date” prescribed u/sec.139(1) of the Act. Mr. Kanojiya referred to sec.80AC (ii) that the same is in the nature of a mandatory provision which disentitles the assessee from claiming sec.80P deduction and therefore, the CPC’s processing dated 29.05.2020 herein had rightly rejected the assessee’s claim u/sec.143(1)(a)(v) of the Act.

4. We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant sole substantive grievance canvassed herein as sec.143(1)(a)(v); for the purpose of disallowing the impugned claim under Chapter- VIA of the Act; has been inserted by the Finance Act 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021 carries prospective effect only whereas the assessment year before us is assessment year 2019-2020 and that CPC’s processing had rejected the assessee’s claim on 3 ITA.No.378/NAG./2022 29.05.2020. That being the case, we conclude that the impugned disallowance by way of sec.143(1)(a)(v) processing is not sustainable in law. We accordingly decline the Revenue’s vehement arguments seeking to revive the sec.80P disallowance herein to the tune of Rs.3,01,74,039/- in very terms. Ordered accordingly.

5. This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed in above terms.”

4.

I thus adopt judicial consistency to reverse the learned lower authorities action disallowing assessee’s impugned deduction claim(s) by way of sec.143(1)(a)(v) “processing” in very terms. The assessee succeeds in it’s instant first and foremost legal ground thereby rendering all other pleadings as academic in nature.

5.

Delay of 149 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned as per assessee’s solemn averments in light of Collector, Land Acquisition vs., MST Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) having settled the law long back that all such technical aspects must make a way for the cause of substantial justice.

6.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 16.04.2024.

More judgments on Section 80P

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →