Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH : NAGPUR
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
[THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING AT PUNE] BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No.377/NAG./2022 Assessment Year 2019-2020 The Assistant Bhagyashri Nagri Sahakari Commissioner of Income Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Tax, CPC, 1st Floor, 01, Madhav Kunj, Gandhi Prestige Alpha No.48/1 Chowk, Nawargaon, vs. 48/2, Beratenaagrahara Chandrapur – 441 223. Begur, Hosur Road, PAN AAFAB3266M Uttarahalli Hobli, Maharashtra Bengaluru – 560 100. Karnataka. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Mahavir Atal, C.A. For Revenue : Shri Abhay Y Marathe, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 21.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2019-2020, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1045007863(1), dated 29.08.2022, involving proceedings u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
The delay of 12 days is condoned 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.
2 ITA.No.377/NAG./2022 3. Mr. Marathe submitted at the outset that both the learned lower authorities and more particularly, the ADIT, CPC, Bangalore’s sec.143(1)(a) “processing” dated 22.02.2020 has rightly disallowed the assessee’s sec.80P deduction claim of Rs.30,70,329/- for want of filing of it’s sec.139(1) return within the “due” date. He sought to buttress the point that such a claim could be disallowed u/sec.143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act by way of “processing” as an instance of “incorrect claim if such incorrect claim is there from any information in the return”. Mr. Marathe further quoted sec.80AC as well as [2022] 138 taxmann.com 571 (Madras) Veerappampalayam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Vs. DCIT that the instant issue has already been settled in Revenue’s favour.
I find no merit in the Revenue’s arguments in respect of impugned sec.80P deduction disallowance made in assessee’s hands. This is for the precise reason that legislature has introduced such a disallowance provision in sec.143(1)(a)(v) dealing with deduction claim(s) provided in Chapter-VI-A of the Act by way of Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021 with prospective effect whereas the assessment year herein is 2017-2018 only. So far as the Revenue’s case quoting sec.80AC is concerned (supra), it would be very much relevant to observe that once the legislature itself has made the impugned provision in sec.143(1)(a)(v); the same could not have led to the assessee’s 80P deduction disallowance in summary “processing”. Hon’ble Madras high court’s decision in 3 ITA.No.377/NAG./2022 Veerappampalayam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society (supra), is also found to be distinguishable on facts as their lordships’ had dealt with assessment year 2018-2019 vide judgment dated 07.04.2021 thereby not having benefit of the amendment made in the Finance Act, 2021 in foregoing terms. That being the clinching fact that sec.143(1)(a)(v) itself is not applicable in assessee’s case specifically dealing with filing of a sec.139(1) return, sub-clause(ii) could not be pressed in action being in the nature of a general provision only. I adopt principles of stricter interpretation as per Commissioner vs. Dilip Kumar And Co. & Ors. [2018] 9 SCC 1 (SC) (FB) to conclude that both the learned lower authorities action disallowing the assessee’s sec.80P deduction(s) claim(s) by way of sec.143(1)(a)(ii) or 143(1)(a)(v) “processing” has to be reversed. Ordered accordingly.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 22.03.2024.