Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, PUNE
Before: SHRI S.S. GODARA & SHRI DIPAK P. RIPOTE
आदेश / ORDER
PER S.S. GODARA, JM :
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2019-20 arises against the CIT(A)-4, Chennai’s order dated 05.01.2024 passed in DIN and Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2023-24/1059396547(1), in proceedings u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”.
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
It emerges at the outset with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the CPC herein has issued u/s. 143(1)(a) “intimation” rejecting the assessee’s claim of section 80P(2)(a)(i) deduction of Rs.57,31,798/- for not having filed return within the due date u/s. 139(1) of the Act.
Learned DR vehemently argued that the assessee’s foregoing section 80P deduction claim has been rightly declined once it had not filed its return within the due date u/s. 139(1) of the Act and therefore, the CPC has rightly treated the same as apparent error u/s. 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. We find that this tribunal’s recent co-ordinate bench’s order in dated 22.03.2024 M/s. Food Corporation of India Employees Co-op. Credit Society Limited Vs. ADIT for A.Y. 2019-20 has rejected the Revenue’s very arguments as under :
“2. 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.16,09,780/- 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.
3. 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 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.”
We adopt the foregoing detailed reasons mutatis mutandis to accept the assessee’s instant sole substantive grievance in very terms. Ordered accordingly.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 12th June, 2024.