MIRAJ PANCHAYAT SAMITI KARMACHARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA M MIRAJ,MIRAJ vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SANGLI, MAHARASHTRA
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M.
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2019-
2020, arises against the Addl./JCIT(A), Indore, Indore’s Din
and Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2023-24/1061328528(1),
dated 22.02.2024, in proceedings u/s.143(1) of the Income Tax
Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
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
2 ITA.No.699/PUN./2024
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.
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.
3 ITA.No.699/PUN./2024
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
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.
This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed in above
terms.”
We 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.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms.
4 ITA.No.699/PUN./2024
Order pronounced in the open Court on 28.08.2024.
Sd/- Sd/- [INTURI RAMA RAO] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Pune, Dated 28th August, 2024
VBP/-
Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The Pr. CIT, Pune concerned 4. D.R. ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 5. Guard File.
//By Order//
//True Copy //
Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.
