INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-4(4), NAGPUR vs. M/S. NAGPUR ZILLA PARISHAD PRIMARY SHIKSHAK SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT, NAGPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 62/NAG/2022Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 December 2023AY 2019-20Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 143(1)(a)(v) was not sustainable as this provision was inserted with prospective effect from 01.04.2021, while the assessment year in question was 2019-2020. Therefore, the disallowance made by the CPC processing on 29.05.2020 was not legally valid.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision to allow a deduction under Section 80P to the assessee. The primary contention was that the return was not filed within the time allowed under Section 139(1). The processing of the return under Section 143(1) had initially rejected this claim.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of Section 80P deduction is valid when the return was filed beyond the due date, considering the prospective applicability of Section 143(1)(a)(v).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

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, NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

Hearing: 27.12.2023Pronounced: 29.12.2023

ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. :

This Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2019- 2020, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short [the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1041209690(1), dated 22.03.2022, involving proceedings u/s.143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

2 ITA.No.62/NAG./2022 2. The Revenue pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal :

1.

“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld CIT erred in allowing the deduction u/s 80P inspite of the fact that the return was not filed within time allowed u/s 139(1) of the Act.

2.

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld CIT erred in relying on the decision in the case of Sunil Vishambharnath Tiwari which is ‘per incuriam’ considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Nath Khanna [2004] 135 Taxman 327 (SC). 3. Any other grounds which may be raised at the time of hearing with the permission of the Hon’ble ITAT.”

3.

Learned CIT-DR vehemently reiterated the Revenue’s above extracted pleadings that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding the assessee eligible for it’s sec.80P deduction despite the fact that it had not filed it’s return within the “due date” prescribed u/sec.139(1) of the Act. Mr. Kanojiya referred to sec.80AC (ii) that the same is in the nature of a mandatory provision which disentitles the assessee from claiming sec.80P deduction and therefore, the CPC’s processing dated 29.05.2020 herein had rightly rejected the assessee’s claim u/sec.143(1)(a)(v) of the Act.

3 ITA.No.62/NAG./2022 4. We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant sole substantive grievance canvassed herein as sec.143(1)(a)(v); for the purpose of disallowing the impugned claim under Chapter- VIA of the Act; has been inserted by the Finance Act 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021 carries prospective effect only whereas the assessment year before us is assessment year 2019-2020 and that CPC’s processing had rejected the assessee’s claim on 29.05.2020. That being the case, we conclude that the impugned disallowance by way of sec.143(1)(a)(v) processing is not sustainable in law. We accordingly decline the Revenue’s vehement arguments seeking to revive the sec.80P disallowance herein to the tune of Rs.3,01,74,039/- in very terms. Ordered accordingly.

5.

This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 29.12.2023.

More judgments on Section 80P

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →