M/S.MUKKOM URBAN CO-OP SOCIETY LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. ITO, KOZHIKKODE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 51/COCH/2023Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 September 2023AY 2019-20Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora (Accountant Member), Shri Manomohan Das (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

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

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80P for AY 2019-20. The return was filed beyond the due date, leading to the disallowance of the deduction under Section 80AC. The disallowance was made through a processing order under Section 143(1) and later reiterated under Section 154.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of Section 80P deduction under Section 143(1) for late filing is maintainable, and if Section 80AC can be applied through such processing mechanisms.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P,Section 80AC,Section 139(1),Section 143(1),Section 154

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: 12.09.2023

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No.51/Coch/2023
SA No.58/Coch/2023

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

O R D E R

Per Sanjay Arora, AM:

1.

This is an Appeal by the Assessee agitating the dismissal of it’s appeal, vide its order dated 30.12.2022, by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department [CIT(A)], contesting the denial of deduction under section 80P of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for assessment year (AY) 2019-2020 vide rectification order u/s.154 of the Act dated 17.11.2020.

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 filed on 25.9.2020, i.e., admittedly 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.13,23,272, was accordingly disallowed vide Intimation u/s.143(1), raising a demand for Rs.5,71,530. Inasmuch as the said Intimation, where

SA No.58/Coch/2023(AY 2019-20) Mukkom Urban Co-op Society Ltd v. ITO determining a sum payable by the assessee, is deemed as a notice of demand, the purport of recourse to s.154, determining the income and the demand in the same sums, i.e., Rs.13,23,270 and Rs.5,71,530 respectively, is not understood.

3.

Be that as it may, 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), since reiterated u/s. 154, scope of which is pari materia. 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. Under the circumstances, we find little merit in the Revenue’s case, and the assessee, accordingly, succeeds. We decide accordingly. As the appeal is disposed of, the assessee’s captioned stay application becomes infructuous.

More judgments on Section 80P

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →