Cooperative society denied Section 80P deduction for belated filing despite returns filed before assessment completion

The ITAT Bangalore denied deduction u/s 80P to a cooperative society for assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11 due to belated filing of returns. Following precedents from Kerala HC and ITAT Bangalore, the tribunal held that post April 1, 2018, section 80P deductions are only allowable if claimed in returns filed within the due date prescribed u/s 139(1). Since the returns were filed after prescribed dates under sections 139(1), 139(4), 142(1), and 148, they were considered non-est and could not be acted upon by the Assessing Officer despite being filed before assessment completion. The tribunal emphasized that deduction provisions must be strictly construed against the assessee, and failure to meet statutory preconditions cannot be condoned. Regarding audit fees and interest expenses deductibility, the matter was remanded to CIT(A) for fresh consideration due to lack of findings.

---

---

ISSUES:

Whether an assessee who files a belated return after the time prescribed under section 139(1), 139(4), or notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act is entitled to claim deduction under section 80P of the Act'Whether interest income earned from fixed deposits and bank investments by a cooperative society engaged in providing credit facilities to members qualifies for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) or section 80P(2)(d) of the Act'Whether provisions made for audit fees and interest expenses (including provision for interest) are allowable deductions while computing taxable income'Whether the Assessing Officer's order passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 and the subsequent order under section 144 read with section 263 of the Act are sustainable regarding disallowance of deductions and additions made?

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

The Court held that the assessee is not entitled to claim deduction under section 80P of the Act in a belatedly filed return after the prescribed time limit under section 139(1), 139(4), or section 148, as such returns are not considered valid returns for the purpose of the Act. The Court emphasized the phrase: "the return filed by the assessee after expiry of such time limit is not a return of income for the purpose of the Act."Interest income earned from deposits with banks does not qualify for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) as it is not "profit earned from the business activity of providing credit facility to the members" and is taxable under section 56 as income from other sources. Similarly, such income is not eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) because that provision applies only to income derived from investments with other cooperative societies, not banks.The provision for audit fees and provision for interest expenses, being unascertained liabilities, are not allowable deductions. The Court upheld the Assessing Officer's disallowance of these provisions.The Court upheld the Assessing Officer's reassessment under section 263 and consequent fresh assessment under section 144 read with section 263, confirming disallowance of deduction under section 80P and addition of provision for interest expense. However, the issue regarding audit fee and interest expense provisions was remanded for fresh consideration due to lack of findings by the appellate authority.

RATIONALE:

The Court applied the statutory framework under sections 80P, 80A(5), 80AC, 139(1), 139(4), 142(1), 148, 56, 143(3), 144, and 263 of the Income Tax Act. It relied on the principle that claims for deduction under section 80P must be made in a valid return filed within the prescribed time limits, as mandated by section 80A(5) and the amended section 80AC effective from 1-4-2018.The Court followed the binding precedent of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in Nileswar Rangekallu Chethu Vyavasaya Thozhilali Sahakarana Sangham v. CIT, which clarified that post-amendment, deduction under section 80P is conditional on filing the return on or before the due date under section 139(1), and returns filed after such date-even if within extended time under other provisions-are not valid for claiming such deduction.The Court distinguished earlier conflicting decisions, including the Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. case, holding them to be per incuriam in light of the statutory amendments and subsequent authoritative rulings.The Court emphasized the strict construction of tax exemptions and deductions against the assessee and in favor of the Revenue, treating the requirement to claim deduction in a valid return as a mandatory precondition that cannot be waived.Regarding the nature of income, the Court interpreted "profits and gains of business" under section 80P(2)(a)(i) as excluding interest income from bank deposits, which is income from other sources under section 56, and clarified that section 80P(2)(d) applies only to income from investments in other cooperative societies, not banks.The Court noted the absence of appellate authority findings on the allowability of audit fee and interest expense provisions and remanded the issue for fresh consideration, applying the relevant provisions of the Act.

---