Belated section 139(4) return validates claims; deduction under section 80P cannot be disallowed in section 143(1) intimation

ITAT held that the AO's disallowance of deduction under section 80P in the intimation under section 143(1) for AY 2019-20 was not tenable where the assessee had filed a belated return under section 139(4) on 30.09.2020. The tribunal treated the belated return as valid for the proceedings and set aside the disallowance premised solely on the return not being filed by the section 139(1) due date.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether delay in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal ought to be condoned where the assessee's registered email on the income-tax portal remained that of a resigned accountant and the assessee became aware of the appellate order only upon checking the portal after instructing its authorised representative.

2. Whether deduction claimed under section 80P (for assessment year 2019-20) can be disallowed by adjustment in an intimation under section 143(1) on the ground that the return was filed after the due date under section 139(1), having regard to section 80AC and the statutory scope of section 143(1) as applicable to that assessment year.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Condonation of delay in presenting appeal

Legal framework: Section 253(5) empowers the Tribunal to admit an appeal after the expiry of the prescribed time if there is a "sufficient cause" for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time. Principles of preferring substantial justice over technicalities guide exercise of such discretion.

Precedent treatment: The Court referred to the settled principle that where substantial justice and technical considerations conflict, substantial justice should prevail (as applied by higher courts in established authority).

Interpretation and reasoning: The assessee demonstrated that notification/service via the income-tax portal did not come to its attention because the portal carried the email of the society's former accountant who had resigned; there was no physical service; the assessee acted promptly once aware (paid fee and filed appeal within a short interval). There was no evidence of deliberate negligence, mala fides, or ulterior motive; Revenue's representative did not oppose condonation.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - the Tribunal applied section 253(5) and the principle favouring substantial justice to find "sufficient cause" and condone delay. The reliance on the general principle (prefer substantial justice) is part of the operative reasoning, not mere obiter.

Conclusions: Delay in filing the appeal was condoned; the appeal was admitted for substantive hearing.

Issue 2: Validity of disallowance under section 143(1) of deduction claimed under section 80P for AY 2019-20

Legal framework: Section 80AC (as in force for the relevant assessment year) provides that deductions under Chapter VI-C are not allowable unless a return is furnished on or before the due date under section 139(1). Section 143(1) (as in force for the relevant year) permits limited adjustments in an intimation - specifically, section 143(1)(a)(v) (amended later with effect from 1-4-2021) and section 143(1)(a)(ii) permitting adjustment for an "incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return" subject to the Explanation which enumerates what constitutes such an incorrect claim.

Precedent treatment: The Tribunal followed a coordinate Bench decision of the Tribunal (Rajkot Bench) addressing the same assessment year and identical issue, holding that the amendment to section 143(1)(a)(v) which expressly authorises denial of Chapter VI-C deductions for late returns applies only from 1-4-2021 and therefore does not apply to AY 2019-20; further, the Explanation to section 143(1)(a)(ii) does not treat denial under section 80AC for late filing as an "incorrect claim apparent from the return."

Interpretation and reasoning: On plain reading, section 80AC creates a substantive bar to allowance of deductions where the return was not filed by the due date. However, whether that substantive bar could be effected by the AO in the limited, prima facie adjustment power under section 143(1) depends on the text of section 143(1) in force for the assessment year. The Tribunal reasoned that: (a) the specific amendment to empower AO to deny Chapter VI-C deductions in 143(1)(a)(v) was effective only from 1-4-2021 and therefore not applicable to AY 2019-20; (b) the scope of adjustments under section 143(1)(a)(ii) is circumscribed by the Explanation and is limited to claims that are incorrect in the particular senses listed (inconsistency with other entries, missing requisite information, exceedance of statutory limits). Denial of a Chapter VI-C deduction on the ground of late filing is not within those enumerated senses and thus is not an "incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return." Accordingly, an AO lacked authority to disallow the section 80P deduction by way of adjustment in the intimation under section 143(1) for AY 2019-20.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - the operative holding is that for AY 2019-20 (before the 1-4-2021 amendment to section 143(1)(a)(v)) the AO cannot, in an intimation under section 143(1), deny a deduction under section 80P solely because the return was filed after the due date; such denial does not fall within the limited prima facie adjustment powers conferred by section 143(1) as delineated by its Explanation. Observations about the later amendment and its temporal non-applicability to the year under consideration are explanatory parts of the reasoning (directly relevant, not mere obiter).

Conclusions: The disallowance of the section 80P deduction in the intimation under section 143(1) for AY 2019-20 was not tenable. Following the reasoning of the coordinate Bench, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow the deduction and allowed the appeal on merits.

Cross-references

1. Issue 1 (condonation) is reflected in the Tribunal's exercise of discretion under section 253(5) and provided the procedural gateway enabling consideration of Issue 2 on the merits.

2. Issue 2 relies on the temporal application of amendments to section 143(1); the Tribunal's decision depends on distinguishing the statutory regime in force for AY 2019-20 from that introduced w.e.f. 1-4-2021, and on the narrow scope of the Explanation to section 143(1)(a)(ii).

---