SHRI GANESH NAGARI SAHKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ,WARD 2(1) KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 352/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 April 2024AY 2020-21Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)3 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) allowing such disallowances had prospective effect and could not be applied to the assessment year 2020-21. The delay in filing the lower appeal was also condoned.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a cooperative credit society, challenged the denial of deductions under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) for AY 2020-21. The lower authorities rejected these claims through an intimation under Section 143(1).

What were the issues?

Whether the denial of Section 80P deductions under Section 143(1) was valid for AY 2020-21, considering the prospective nature of the relevant amendment. Whether the delay in filing the lower appeal should be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P,Section 143(1)

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 21.03.2024Pronounced: 16.04.2024

ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2020-21, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/ 1059570926(1), dated 10.01.2024, 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 denying it sec.80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) deduction(s) of Rs.35,93,155/- and Rs.34,57,315/- respectively.

1.

2 ITA.No.352/PUN./2024 3. Mr. Shingte submitted during the course of hearing that the ADIT, CPC, Bangalore’s intimation dated 23.12.2021 has in fact rejected the impugned deduction(s) as upheld in the “NFAC” order. This clinching fact has gone un-rebutted from the department side.

4.

In view of the foregoing factual backdrop, the clinching issue which arises herein is as to whether the assessee’s impugned sec.80P deduction claim(s) could be declined u/sec.143(1)(a)(v) “processing” or not ? The Revenue vehemently argued that the foregoing amended provision has been rightly invoked in the facts of the instant case. Learned DR could hardly dispute that the above amendment in sec.143(1)(a)(v) enabling the impugned disallowance(s) by way of sec.143(1) intimation inserted by the Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021 carries prospective effect only whereas the impugned assessment year involved in the instant appeal is 2020-2021. That being the case, I hereby reject the Revenue’s stand supporting the impugned sec.143(1)(a)(v) intimation dated 23.12.2021 rejecting the assessee’s foregoing sec.80P deduction claim(s) in very terms. Ordered accordingly.

5.

It would indeed be relevant to make it clear that the CIT(A) herein has refused to condone 11 months delay in filing of the lower appeal. He has not adjudicated the assessee’s other substantive grounds on merits. It is, in these circumstances that I deem it appropriate to quote 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 3 ITA.No.352/PUN./2024 substantial justice, to condone the delay. The assessee’s foregoing delay of 11 months in filing of the lower appeal is condoned in above terms.

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 →