TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 345
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....32/CHD/2021 are reproduced hereunder for the sake of completeness: 1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in upholding the disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and that too under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That the order of the Ld Assessing Officer is bad in law and Facts. 3. The relevant facts of the case are that the assessee who is a primary agricultural cooperative society filed its ITR for AY. 2018-19 on 13.10.2018 declaring 'nil' income by claiming deduction u/s 80P of Rs.1,11,421/-. 3.1 The said return was processed u/s 143(1) by CPC, Bangalore. Intimation u/s 143(1) dated 31.05.2019 was served on assessee on 17.06.2019 assessing total income of the assessee at Rs.1,11,420/-. 3.2 In the present case the due date of filing of the return was 31.08.2018. The assessee has filed its return after the due date on 13.10.2018. Similar is the position in the remaining appeals as all the assessees filed their respective returns after the due date. 4. The assessee aggrieved with the disallowance of its deduction claimed u/s 80P by the intimation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....visions having been introduced by the Finance Act, 2021 effective from 01.04.2021 by way of amendment of sub-clause (v) of Section 143(1). Accordingly, prior to the assessment year 2020-2021 disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80P on the grounds of late filing of return by an order u/s 143(1) was not in accordance with law. 6.3 Reliance was also placed upon various decisions to argue that absence of enabling provisions the order is sans powers. Decision of the ITAT, Chandigarh in M/s Sonalac Paints & Coating Ltd. Vs DCIT in ITA 1158/CHD/2017 dated 01.05.2018; HIMUDA Nigam Vihar, Shimla V ACIT in ITA Nos.480,481 & 972/CHD/2012 dated 10.05.2019; decision dated 05.10.2015 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT-VI Vs M/s Unitech Ltd. and decision dated 08.11.2019 of ITAT, Lucknow Bench in Dy. CIT, Central Circle-1, Kanpur Vs M/s Rama Medicare Ltd. in ITA No.183/LKW/2019 were specifically referred to. 7. Sr.DR Ms.Ranjeet Kaur relied on the order. 8. The ld. AR was required to address the Bench on whether there was any decision against the assessee on the issue. In response thereto, ld. AR in all fairness invited attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imed if the returns were filed beyond the due date, (iv) disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing total income (v) disallowance of deducti on claimed u nder specified provisions of the Act if the return was filed beyond due date or (vi) additional income appearing in Form 26AS or 16A or l6, which has not been taken into account in computing total income. According to them, there is no error as aforesaid that emanates from the returns of income tiled by the petitioners and as such, the invocation of Section 143 (1)(a) of the Act is itself flawed. 11.4 Emphasis was also laid on the following argument for consideration before the Court which is not the argument advanced in the present case : "5 Learned counsel for the petitioners would than argue that the Explanation under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act explains an incorrect claim' for the purpose of Clause (ii) of Section 143 (l) (a) of the Act, as meaning a claim based on an entry in a return of income. According to them, the date of return does not constitute an 'entry' and hence no adjustment is called for on this score. 11.5 It was submitted that in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....30.07.2018 in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai vs M/s Dilip Kumar and Company & Sons for the following proposition : "(2) When there is ambiguity in exemption notification which is subject to strict interpretation, the benefit of such ambiguity cannot be claimed by the subject/assessee and it must be interpreted in favour of the revenue." 13. The ld. AR submitted that the decision is not applicable. 14. I have heard the submissions and perused the material on record. Since heavy reliance has been placed by the ld. Sr.DR on the impugned order, specific para 8.1. For ready reference of the same is extracted hereunder : "8.1 Finding on Ground of appeal Nos. 1 to 3 a) The CPC Bangalore has made the addition/adjustment of Rs.1,11,421/- u/s 143(1) of the Act as deduction u/s 80P claimed of Rs.1,11,421/- was disallowed on the ground that return was not filed within the due date. The undersigned has gone through the 143(1) intimation and written submissions filed by the Appellant. These Grounds of Appeal are discussed and decided in subsequent paras of this order. b) It is not in dispute that from AY. 2018-19, the Appellant for claiming deduction u/s 80P has t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Nos. 1 to 3 are dismissed." 14.1 On consideration of the above when read alongwith the arguments advanced before the CIT(A) on behalf of the assessee which have been re-iterated before the ITAT, I find that on facts the case of the assessee is allowable. The AO/CPC Bangalore at the relevant time though considering the amended Section 80AC was exercising the powers as vested by the Section 143(1) of the Act as it then stood. At the relevant point of time, the provisions of Section 143(1) of the Act were as under : 143. (1) Where a return has been made under section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142, such return shall be processed in the following manner, namely:- (a) the total income or loss shall be computed after making the following adjustments, namely: - (i)any arithmetical error in the return; [***] (ii) an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return; (iii) disallowance of loss claimed, if return of the previous year for which set off of loss is claimed was furnished beyond the due date specified under subsection (1) of section 139; (iv)disallowance of expenditure indicated in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he extent Notification was being considered. The order of denial by the Customs Officer was reversed by Commissioner of Customs. This order was confirmed by Customs Excise & Service Tax Tribunal (CESTAT) which led to the filing of the appeal before the Hon'ble High Court and then the Apex Court. It is in that background that the Hon'ble Court held that exemption notification should be interpreted strictly and the burden of proving that the case comes within the parameters of the exemption clause or exemption notification would be on the assessee. In such circumstances, in case there is ambiguity, the Notification must be interpreted in favour of the Revenue. In the facts of the present case, there is no ambiguity. It is a case of absence of enabling provision. Hence, the ratio laid down therein has no applicability to the facts of the present case. 14.4 It is also necessary to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Veerappampalayam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. Vs DCIT (cited supra). A perusal of the same shows that the issue for consideration before the Hon'ble High Court in the Writ Jurisdiction invoked by the....