Society's Section 80P deduction claim allowed despite late filing as processing center lacked jurisdiction to disallow

ITAT Panaji allowed the assessee society's appeal regarding disallowance of section 80P deduction. The society filed a belated return claiming 80P(2) deduction, which was disallowed by CPC under section 143(1)(a)(v). The tribunal held that CPC lacked jurisdiction to disallow the deduction during return processing, despite the claim being subject to disallowance under section 80AC for late filing. The tribunal found CPC's action exceeded its authority and was unlawful, reversing the disallowance based on coordinate bench precedents and Kerala HC decision in Travancore Titanium Products Ltd.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal are:

• Whether the Central Processing Centre (CPC) had jurisdiction under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to deny or disallow the deduction claimed under section 80P of Chapter VI-A of the Act when the return of income was filed beyond the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act;
• Whether the denial of deduction u/s 80P by the CPC through summary assessment was lawful and within the authority conferred by the statute at the relevant time;
• The applicability and interpretation of section 80AC(ii) of the Act regarding disallowance of claims made under Chapter VI-A for returns filed beyond the due date;
• The effect of amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021 to clause (v) of section 143(1)(a) of the Act on the jurisdiction of the CPC to disallow such deductions;
• Whether the appellate authority (CIT(A)) was justified in upholding the CPC's disallowance of the deduction claimed.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Jurisdiction of the CPC under section 143(1) of the Act to disallow deduction under section 80P for belated return filing

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act empowers the CPC to process returns summarily and issue intimation orders. Clause (v) of section 143(1)(a) specifically enumerates the CPC's power to disallow certain deductions if the return is filed beyond the due date under section 139(1). Prior to amendment, this clause listed specific sections (10AA, 80-IA, 80-IAB, 80-IB, 80-IC, 80-ID, 80-IE) under which deductions could be disallowed on late filing.

Section 80AC(ii), introduced by the Finance Act, 2018, mandates that to claim deductions under Chapter VI-A, including section 80P, the return must be filed within the prescribed due date under section 139(1). Failure to do so results in disqualification of the deduction claim.

However, the clause (v) of section 143(1)(a) was substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 with effect from 01/04/2021 to include deductions under "any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A" under the heading "C.-Deductions in respect of certain incomes," thereby expanding the CPC's power to disallow such deductions during summary processing.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that at the time when the CPC passed the order of intimation (16/04/2020), the clause (v) of section 143(1)(a) did not empower the CPC to disallow deductions under section 80P or Chapter VI-A generally for belated returns. The amendment expanding this power only came into effect from 01/04/2021. Therefore, the CPC lacked jurisdiction to deny the deduction claimed under section 80P during summary assessment for AY 2019-20.

Key evidence and findings: The return was filed on 23/09/2019, after the due date of 31/08/2019, making it a belated return under section 139(4). The CPC denied the deduction claimed under section 80P invoking section 80AC(ii) due to late filing. The appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the CPC to disallow the deduction at the summary stage.

Application of law to facts: Since the CPC's jurisdiction to disallow deductions under Chapter VI-A on account of late filing was not conferred until the Finance Act, 2021 amendment, the denial of deduction in 2020 was beyond the CPC's authority.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue contended that since section 80AC(ii) disqualifies deductions for late filing, the CPC could deny the claim either at summary assessment under section 143(1) or regular assessment under section 143(3). The Tribunal rejected this, emphasizing the absence of explicit jurisdictional power in section 143(1)(a)(v) at the relevant time.

Conclusions: The CPC's disallowance of the deduction under section 80P during summary processing was without jurisdiction and therefore invalid.

Issue 2: Applicability of section 80AC(ii) and the timing of jurisdictional amendments

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 80AC(ii) disqualifies deductions under Chapter VI-A if the return is not filed within the due date under section 139(1). However, the mechanism for enforcing this disqualification at the summary assessment stage depends on the jurisdiction granted under section 143(1)(a)(v).

The Tribunal relied on several coordinate bench decisions, including 'Dayalbhag Co-op. Chrome Leather Tanneries Ltd. Vs DCIT, CPC', 'Allamaprabhu VUSS Niyamit Kalloli Allamaprabhu VUSS Niyamit Kalloli Vs ITO', and 'Bhagyalaxmi Co-Op. Cr. Soc. Ltd. Vs DCIT' which held that prior to the Finance Act, 2021 amendment, the CPC lacked jurisdiction to disallow section 80P deductions during summary assessment.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal highlighted that while section 80AC(ii) applied from AY 2019-20 onwards, the enabling provision allowing CPC to disallow deductions under Chapter VI-A at summary assessment was introduced only from AY 2021-22. Therefore, the denial of deduction by the CPC before this amendment was ultra vires.

Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal examined the text of clause (v) of section 143(1)(a) before and after substitution and found that the earlier provision did not include section 80P or Chapter VI-A generally.

Application of law to facts: Since the appellant's return was processed in 2020, before the amendment, the CPC had no power to deny the deduction at that stage.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue's argument that disallowance could be made either at summary or regular assessment was countered by the Tribunal's finding that the CPC's summary power was limited by the statutory text at the relevant time.

Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the disallowance of the deduction under section 80P on the ground of late filing could not be validly made by the CPC at summary assessment for AY 2019-20.

Issue 3: Validity of the CIT(A)'s order upholding the CPC's disallowance

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The CIT(A) had upheld the CPC's disallowance of the deduction. However, coordinate benches have set aside similar orders upholding CPC disallowance in the absence of jurisdiction.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the CPC's disallowance since the CPC lacked jurisdiction at the relevant time. The Tribunal relied on the consistent view of coordinate benches and authoritative precedents to reverse the CIT(A) order.

Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal noted no contrary submissions or evidence from the Revenue to justify the CIT(A)'s decision.

Application of law to facts: The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the disallowance was directed to be reversed.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's contention that the CIT(A) was correct in upholding the disallowance.

Conclusions: The CIT(A) order was quashed, and the appellant's claim for deduction under section 80P was restored.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Tribunal held:

"The jurisdiction of Ld. CPC s/c (v) of clause (a) of s/s (1) of section 143 of the Act to deny or disallow the deduction claimed under the head 'C-Deduction in respect of certain income' u/c VI-A of the Act was not available as on the date when the order of intimation was passed."

"As on the date of processing the return summarily u/s 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act there was no enabling power vested with the Ld. CPC to apply provisions of section 80AC(ii) of the Act."

"Therefore, the impugned action of disallowance in our considered view was beyond Ld. CPC's jurisdiction or authority."

"In the absence of the enabling jurisdiction provisions, the Ld. CPC lacked the jurisdiction to make any disallowance of claim made u/c VI-A of the act while processing the return summarily u/s 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act."

"Therefore, the impugned action of denial of 80P deduction to the appellant by the Ld. CPC was barred by jurisdiction, hence unlawful."

"We concur with the claim of the appellant society that the Ld. CPC clearly traversed and in fact exceeded its jurisdiction in disallowing the appellant's claim for deduction u/s 80P of the Act. Therefore, same is liable to be vacated."

Core principles established include:

• The CPC's jurisdiction to disallow deductions under Chapter VI-A for late filing of returns during summary assessment depends strictly on the statutory provisions in force at the time of processing;
• Section 80AC(ii) disqualifies deductions for late filing, but enforcement at the summary assessment stage requires explicit jurisdictional provisions;
• Amendments expanding CPC's powers under section 143(1)(a)(v) are prospective and do not validate prior disallowances made without jurisdiction;
• Denial of deductions by CPC without jurisdiction is null and void and must be reversed on appeal.

Final determinations on each issue are:

• The CPC lacked jurisdiction under section 143(1) to disallow the section 80P deduction at the time of summary processing;
• Section 80AC(ii) applies but cannot be enforced by CPC without enabling jurisdiction;
• The CIT(A)'s order confirming CPC's disallowance is set aside;
• The appellant's claim for deduction under section 80P is restored and the disallowance is vacated.

---