THE RAGHUNAYAKA LARGE SIZED COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,CHINNAYYAGUDEM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TADEPALLIGUDEM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 267/VIZ/2021Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 March 2023AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)8 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of delayed PF/ESI contributions was justified based on the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. It further held that the Section 80P deduction was rightly disallowed because the returns were filed after the due date, as per the amendment to Section 80AC.

What were the facts?

The assessees, cooperative credit societies, claimed deduction under Section 80P for AY 2018-19. They also had delayed payments of employee PF/ESI contributions. The Assessing Officer disallowed the Section 80P deduction and the delayed payments, which was upheld by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of Section 80P deduction is valid when the return is filed belatedly, and whether delayed payment of employee PF/ESI contributions are disallowable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P,Section 139(1),Section 80AC,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, VISAKHAPATNAM “SMC” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM

Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, AR
For Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR, Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Hearing: 02.03.2023Pronounced: 08.03.2023

Heard together (3 matters)

I.T.A.No.255/Viz/2021
I.T.A.No.267/Viz/2021
I.T.A.No.219/Viz/2021

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

आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member : These appeals are filed by the assessees against the orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 08.10.2021, 24.11.2021 and 01.09.2021 for the Assessment Year 2018-19. Since the issue involved in these appeals is common, these appeals are clubbed, heard together and a common order is being passed for the sake of convenience as under. Facts are extracted from I.T.A.No.255/Viz/2021 for adjudication.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed it’s return of income for the A.Y.2018-19 on 02.01.2019, declaring Nil income by claiming deduction u/s 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”). The order u/s 143(1) was passed by the AO, by disallowing the deduction u/s 80P and making disallowance of delayed payments of employees contribution for PF and ESI contribution amounting to Rs.11,874/-. The assessee had filed rectification application u/s 154. The AO has passed an order u/s 154 on 06.01.2020, without making any changes to the order u/s 143(1) of the Act.

1.

3 267/Viz/2021 & 219/Viz/2021, A.Y.2018-19 Unagatla Large Sized Cooperative Credit Society, Chagallu Mandal And Raghunayaka Large Sized Cooperative Credit Society, Chinnayyagudem No.1431 Lemellepadu Primary Agricultural Co-op Society Ltd.

3.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) after considering the submissions made by the assessee, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.

4.

On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and raised the following grounds :

1.

The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case.

2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have held that the adjustments made in the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act were outside the scope of adjustments that can be made while processing the return u/s 143(1) of the Act. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have directed the assessing officer to allow the deduction of Rs.14,66,546 claimed by the appellant u/s 80P of the Act. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have directed the assessing officer to delete the addition of Rs.11,874/- made towards disallowance of belated remittance of employees’ contribution to PF and ESI. 5. Any other grounds may be urged at the time of hearing. After considering the grounds filed by the assessee, the assessee has raised two issues before me for adjudication, i.e., the AO is not correct in disallowing deduction u/s 80P of the Act and making disallowance of delayed payment of employees’ contribution of PF and ESI. So far as the 4 267/Viz/2021 & 219/Viz/2021, A.Y.2018-19 Unagatla Large Sized Cooperative Credit Society, Chagallu Mandal And Raghunayaka Large Sized Cooperative Credit Society, Chinnayyagudem No.1431 Lemellepadu Primary Agricultural Co-op Society Ltd.

second issue is concerned, now the law is settled after a view had been taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., in Civil Appeal No.2833 of 2016, order dated 12.10.2022. In the case on hand also, the assessee made remittances before filing the return of income u/s 139(1), but not within the due date specified by the respective PF / ESI Acts. Therefore, I have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the disallowance made by the AO as well as the Ld.CIT(A) needs no interference in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court mentioned supra.

5.

So far as the disallowance of deduction of Rs.14,66,546 u/s 80P of the Act is justifiable or not, it was the submission of the assessee that the AO as well as the Ld.CIT(A) denied the benefit u/s 80P of the Act, since the assessee has not filed the return of income on or before the due date specified u/s 139(1) of the Act. He further argued that though there is amendment to section 80AC(ii), but corresponding provisions u/s 143(1)(v)(a) was amended only w.e.f. 01.04.2021. Therefore, it should be applicable. from A.Y.2022-23 only. He further submitted that the assessee’s appeal pertains to the A.Y.2018-19, therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) is 5 267/Viz/2021 & 219/Viz/2021, A.Y.2018-19 Unagatla Large Sized Cooperative Credit Society, Chagallu Mandal And Raghunayaka Large Sized Cooperative Credit Society, Chinnayyagudem No.1431 Lemellepadu Primary Agricultural Co-op Society Ltd.

not right in confirming the disallowance of deduction made by the AO u/s 80P of the Act.

6.

On the other hand, the Ld.DR has submitted that there is amendment to section 80AC(ii) and according to the said amendment, the deduction under any provisions of Chapter VIA are not to be allowed unless return of income is filed on or before the due date specified u/s 139(1) of the Act. He further submitted that since the assessee failed to file the return of income on or before the due date specified u/s 139(1), the assessee is not entitled for deduction u/s 80P of the Act. Corresponding amendment is not at all necessary, to look into this aspect since 80AC amendment is clearly applicable from the A.Y.2018-19. He also relied on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of AA520 Veerappampalayam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [2022] 138 taxmann.com 571 (Madras).

7.

I have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. Now, so far as the deduction u/s 80P is concerned, we have gone through the provisions of section 80AC(ii) amendment, which made it clear that any deduction that is claimed under para ‘c’ of Chapter VI A 6 267/Viz/2021 & 219/Viz/2021, A.Y.2018-19 Unagatla Large Sized Cooperative Credit Society, Chagallu Mandal And Raghunayaka Large Sized Cooperative Credit Society, Chinnayyagudem No.1431 Lemellepadu Primary Agricultural Co-op Society Ltd.

would be admissible, only if the return of income in that case is filed within the prescribed due date. Therefore, no claim under any of the provisions of para ‘c’ of Chapter VIA would be admissible in the case of belated return. It is undisputed fact that the return of income was filed beyond the due date of filing of return of income specified u/s 139(1). According to me, it is a mechanical exercise and one that can be carried out by CPC very much within the scope of section 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, the contention of the assessee that the amendment made to section 143(1)(a)(v) is applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2021 has no application in the present case on hand, since the assessee made incorrect claim, according to the decision rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras. Therefore, the decision relied on by the Ld.AR, which was passed by the “SMC” Bench of ITAT, Chandigarh has no application. Therefore, I am of the view that the disallowance u/s 80P of the Act has been rightly made by the CPC and upheld by the Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, the grounds raised by the assessee are liable to be dismissed. In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.

8. None appeared for the assessee, in the case of No.1431 Lemellepadu Primary Agricultural Co-op Society Ltd. in I.T.A.

7 267/Viz/2021 & 219/Viz/2021, A.Y.2018-19 Unagatla Large Sized Cooperative Credit Society, Chagallu Mandal And Raghunayaka Large Sized Cooperative Credit Society, Chinnayyagudem No.1431 Lemellepadu Primary Agricultural Co-op Society Ltd.

NO.219/Viz/2021 for the A.Y.2018-19. But the issue involved in this appeal also pertains to deduction u/s 80P. In the instant case also, the assessee has filed return of income beyond the specified due date of return of income. Therefore, the view taken in the above appeals is applicable in this case also mutatis mutandis.

8.

In the result, appeals of the assessees are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 8th March, 2023.

More judgments on Section 80P

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →