DECENT JUNCTION SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. THE ITO WARD 2(1), KOLLAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 185/COCH/2023Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 September 2023AY 2019-20Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora (Accountant Member), Shri Manomohan Das (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the adjustment made under Section 143(1)(a)(ii) for disallowing the deduction under Section 80P due to late filing was not maintainable. Furthermore, the adjustment under Section 143(1)(a)(v) related to Section 80AC was not applicable prior to April 1, 2021.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a cooperative bank, claimed a deduction under Section 80P. The return was filed beyond the due date, and the deduction was disallowed under Section 80AC. The assessee contested this disallowance made via an intimation under Section 143(1).

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of deduction under Section 80P under Section 143(1) for filing the return beyond the due date is maintainable. Whether Section 80AC, as amended, could be applied retrospectively via Section 143(1) before the specified amendment date.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN

Before: Shri Sanjay Arora, AM &Shri Manomohan Das, JM

Hearing: 04.09.2023

O R D E R

Per Sanjay Arora, AM:

1.

This is an Appeal by the Assessee agitating the dismissal of it’s appeal contesting the denial of deduction under section 80P of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) on processing of it’s return of income for assessment year (AY) 2019- 2020 vide Intimation u/s.143(1) dated 15.6.2020, by the Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department [CIT(A)] vide order dated 13.02.2023.

2.

The denial of deduction u/s.80P in the instant case has been on account of application of s.80AC of the Act, which, with effect from 01.04.2018, bars the claim of deduction, inter alia, under any provision falling under Chapter VI-A (Part-C), where not made per a return filed within the time specified u/s.139(1). The return in the instant case has been admittedly filed on 25.9.2020, i.e., beyond the extended period of time allowed for filing the original return, i.e., 31.10.2019. The claim u/s.80P, made at Rs.2,75,14,814, was accordingly disallowed vide Intimation u/s.143(1), raising a demand for Rs.1,19,32,73.

(AY 2019-20) Decent Junction Sergice Co-op Bank Ltd v. ITO 3. The issue before us is the maintainability of the Revenue’s action in denying the assessee it’s claim for deduction u/s.80P on processing u/s.143(1)(a). This Tribunal has, vide a detailed order in Kollad Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Ors. v. ITO(in dated 25.9.2023), found the adjustment u/s.143(1)(a)(ii), which has been applied in the instant case as well, as not maintainable, as indeed u/s. 143(1)(a)(v) where the same is prior to 01.04.2021, i.e., the date on which the corresponding amendment, i.e., with reference to sec.80AC, stands made in sec.143(1)(a)(v). As explained therein, the adjustment is outside the scope of s. 143(1)(a)(ii), while that u/s. 143(1)(a)(v) could not be given effect to prior to 01/4/2021, as obtains in the instant case.

4.

No contrary argument stands advanced, or decision relied upon by the Revenue; that cited by it in Kollad SCB Ltd. (supra) found distinguishable. The appellant has in fact placed decisions by the Tribunal, holding to the same effect,in it’s compilation. Under the circumstances, we find little merit in the Revenue’s case, and the assessee, accordingly, succeeds. We decide accordingly.

More judgments on Section 80P

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →