Deduction Under Section 80P Restored, CPC Lacked Power for Disallowance Under Section 143(1) Before 2021 Amendment

ITAT Hyderabad allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that CPC lacked jurisdiction to disallow deduction under s. 80P while processing the return under s. 143(1) for AY 2019-20. It held that, prior to the Finance Act 2021 amendment effective from 01.04.2021, s. 143(1)(a)(v) permitted prima facie adjustments only in respect of specified deductions (ss. 10AA, 80IA, 80IAB, 80IB, 80IC, 80ID, 80IE), not s. 80P. As the amendment is prospective, the disallowance made for delayed filing was ultra vires s. 143(1); the appellate order was set aside and the deduction restored.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether the delay of 290 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal should be condoned.

1.2 Whether, for Assessment Year 2019-20, deduction under Section 80P could be disallowed by way of prima facie adjustment while processing the return under Section 143(1), particularly in light of Section 143(1)(a)(ii) and (v) as they then stood.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Condonation of delay of 290 days in filing the appeal

Interpretation and reasoning

2.1 The Tribunal examined the assessee's explanation that the appellate order of the first appellate authority dated 31.03.2024 was communicated to the email ID of a retired officer, and therefore did not reach the current management. The assessee became aware of the order only upon receiving a recovery notice on 30.12.2024.

2.2 It was further noted that the President of the society, who was handling tax matters, was suffering from cardiac issues followed by spinal disorder, was under medical treatment and temporarily incapacitated, and upon recovery took steps to file the appeal. An affidavit and medical records were filed in support.

2.3 The Tribunal found the explanation to be reasonable, bona fide, and free from negligence or mala fide intent. In support of a liberal and justice-oriented approach to condonation of delay, the Tribunal relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Vidya Shankar Jaiswal v. Income Tax Officer (SLP (Civil) Nos. 26310-26311/2024, dated 31.01.2025).

Conclusions

2.4 The Tribunal held that sufficient cause for the delay had been shown, adopted a liberal, justice-oriented approach, condoned the delay of 290 days, and admitted the appeal for adjudication on merits.

Issue 2: Legality of disallowance of deduction under Section 80P through adjustment under Section 143(1) for AY 2019-20

Legal framework

2.5 The Tribunal set out Section 143(1)(a) as applicable to the relevant year, permitting adjustments for: (i) arithmetical errors; (ii) incorrect claims apparent from the return; (iii) disallowance of loss due to late filing; (iv) disallowance of expenditure or increase in income indicated in the audit report but not considered in the return; (v) disallowance of deduction claimed under Sections 10AA, 80IA, 80IAB, 80IB, 80IC, 80ID, 80IE if the return is filed after the due date under Section 139(1); and (vi) certain income reflected in specified information forms.

2.6 The Tribunal noted that Section 143(1)(a)(v), as it stood prior to amendment by the Finance Act, 2021 (effective from 01.04.2021), covered only deductions under Sections 10AA, 80IA, 80IAB, 80IB, 80IC, 80ID, and 80IE, and did not include Section 80P. It further observed that the Finance Act, 2021 subsequently expanded the scope of Section 143(1)(a)(v) to all deductions under Chapter VI-A, including Section 80P, with prospective effect from 01.04.2021.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.7 The core issue identified was whether the Centralised Processing Centre (CPC) was empowered, for AY 2019-20, to disallow deduction under Section 80P by way of prima facie adjustment under Section 143(1).

2.8 The assessee contended that Section 143(1)(a)(v), being a specific provision dealing with disallowance of certain Chapter VI-A deductions while processing returns, did not then extend to Section 80P; therefore, the CPC had no jurisdiction to disallow such deduction under Section 143(1). It was argued that the first appellate authority erred in invoking the general clause in Section 143(1)(a)(ii) ("incorrect claim apparent from the return") to sustain the disallowance.

2.9 The Tribunal accepted the principle that specific provisions override general provisions. Since Section 143(1)(a)(v) is a specific clause dealing with the disallowance of certain stated deductions at the processing stage, reliance on the general clause in Section 143(1)(a)(ii) to cover disallowance of Section 80P was held to be misplaced.

2.10 The Tribunal expressly held that, prior to the 01.04.2021 amendment, Section 143(1)(a)(v) did not authorize disallowance of deduction under Section 80P. Consequently, CPC could not have made such an adjustment for AY 2019-20, and the amendment extending the scope to all Chapter VI-A deductions was prospective, not retrospective.

2.11 The Tribunal found that the first appellate authority had incorrectly treated the claim under Section 80P as a clearly inadmissible claim within the meaning of Section 143(1)(a)(ii), undermining the structure and limits of Section 143(1)(a) where the legislature had already carved out a specific sub-clause governing disallowances of particular deductions.

2.12 The Tribunal relied on the reasoning of the Coordinate Bench in Narhari Maharaj Manjoor Sahakari Sanstha Ltd., which held that, prior to 01.04.2021, CPC could not disallow deduction under Section 80P by prima facie adjustment under Section 143(1)(a), as no specific provision then allowed such disallowance.

Conclusions

2.13 The Tribunal concluded that, for AY 2019-20, the CPC exceeded its jurisdiction in disallowing the deduction claimed under Section 80P while processing the return under Section 143(1), as such adjustment was beyond the scope of permissible adjustments under Section 143(1)(a) as then in force.

2.14 It was held that the first appellate authority had erred in sustaining the disallowance by invoking Section 143(1)(a)(ii). The order of the first appellate authority was set aside, and the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the disallowance of deduction under Section 80P amounting to Rs. 36,70,431/- made while processing the return under Section 143(1).

2.15 Other grounds, including the merits of the Section 80P claim, mutuality, and interest under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C, were not independently adjudicated, as the disallowance itself was held to be invalid at the Section 143(1) stage.

---