TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 158
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Act is not a permissible adjustment under section 143(1) under the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The authorities below have failed to appreciate that the delay in filing the return of income shall not disentitle the claim of deduction under section 8oP of the Act since, the requirement to file the return of income within the time specified under section 139(1) of the Act is directory and not mandatory under the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The authorities below have failed to appreciate that the appellant has fulfilled the conditions for claiming deduction under section 801) of the Actand are not justified in invoking the provisions of section 8oAC of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. That there was a reasonable cause for delay in furnishing the return of income for the impugned assessment year under the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act in view of the fact that there is no liability to additional tax as determined by the learned assessing officer. Without prejudice the rate, period and on what quantum the interest has been le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is passed following the good law. And the adjustment made u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act is valid adjustment as far as the legality of it is concerned. Therefore, the action of the AO CPC is correct and is upheld. The ground of appeal is dismissed. 6.1 The factual matrix of the case is that the return of income u/s 139 of the Act was filed by the assessee on 29.12.2018, whereas the extended date for filing the return was 31.8.2018. Therefore, the return was not filed within the due date as provided u/s 139(1) of the Act. Further section 80AC provides that no deduction shall be allowed if the return is not filed within the due date as specified u/s 139(1) of the Act. Section 80AC is reproduced below: "Deduction not to be allowed unless return furnished. BOAC. Where in computing the total income of an assessee of any previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing 9n or after- (i) the 1st day of April, 2006 but before the 1st day of April, 2018, any deduction is admissible under section 80-IA or section 80-lAB or section 80-lB or section 80-IC or section 80-ID or section 80-1E; (ii) the 1st day of April, 2018, any deduction is admissible under any provision of this Chapt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... * The Lanjani Co-operative Agri Service Society Ltd., ITA No.332/CHD/2021 * Jila ALP SankhyakBachatSahakari Sakh Samiti Maryadit, ITA No.143/RPR/2022 * Meghana Apartment Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., ITA No.612, 613, 614/Mum/2022 5. He further submitted that the Tribunal had decided the similar issue in favour of the assessee in the above cited judgments. Accordingly, he requested that the issue may be decided in favour of the assessee. 6. On the other hand, learned DR relied on the order of the lower authorities and submitted that the due date of filing of return was 31.08.2018, whereas the assessee filed return on 29.12.2018, which is beyond the due date for filing the return of income. The section 80AC(ii) of the Act has been amended and if assessee wants to claim deduction under Chapter VI-A under the heading 'Deduction in respect of certain incomes' he has to file the return of income within the due date as per section 139(1) of the Act but the assessee did not comply with the provisions of section 80AC of the Act. Therefore, he is not eligible for making claim for deduction under section 80P of the Act. He further submitted that the provision of section 80AC of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....escribed u/s 139(1) of the Act and in such circumstances, the assessee is not eligible to claim deduction u/s 80P of the Act in accordance with provisions of sec. 80AC of the Act. Thus, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80P of the Act, which is one item and same is inconsistent with actual date of filing of return which is entry of some other item in the return and thus actually matches with Explanation - (a)(i) to sec. 143(1)(a) of the Aact. Thus, CPC has been correctly applying said provisions of sec. 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act while disallowing deduction u/s 80P of the Act, where return is filed after the specified due date. He further submitted that the amendment made later as submitted by the assessee will effect because there was clear provision in section 80AC of the Act. 6.3 The ld. Dr. also relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Wipro Ltd. vs Pr. CIT in which it has been held as under:- Section 10B, read with section 72, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Export oriented undertaking (Submission of declaration) - Assessment year 2001- 02 - Assessee, a 100 per cent EOU, filed its original return under section 139(1) on due date declaring loss and cla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee has claimed deduction U/s 80P(2)(a)(i) on profits earned during the year and filed return of income on 31.12.2018, which is beyond the due date as prescribed as per section 139(1) of the Act, accordingly the assessee is not complying with the condition which are prescribed by section 80AC(ii) of the Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the recent decision , settled the law in case of an exemption / deduction clause in a tax statute in the case of Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax reported in [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC) in which it has been held as under:- 48. One of the rules of interpretation of a tax statute is that if a deduction or exemption is available on compliance with certain conditions, the conditions are to be strictly complied with Eagle Flask Industries Ltd. v. CCE 2004 taxmann.com 350 (SC)/2004 Supp. (4) SCR 35. This rule is in line with the general principle that taxing statutes are to be construed strictly, and that there is no room for equitable considerations. 49. That deductions are to be granted only when the conditions which govern them are strictly complied with. This has been laid down in State of Jharkhand v. Ambay Cement....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om extracting tax from the citizens without authority of law. It is axiomatic that taxation statute has to be interpreted strictly because the State cannot at their whims and fancies burden the citizens without authority of law. In other words, when the competent legislature mandates taxing certain persons/certain objects in certain circumstances, it cannot be expanded/interpreted to include those, which were not intended by the legislature. ** ** ** 34. The passages extracted above, were quoted with approval by this Court in at least two decisions being CIT v. Kasturi & Sons Ltd. [CIT v. Kasturi & Sons Ltd., (1999) 3 SCC 346] and State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd. [State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd., (2004) 10 SCC 201] (hereinafter referred to as "Kesoram Industries case [State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd., (2004) 10 SCC 201]", for brevity). In the later decision, a Bench of five Judges, after citing the above passage from Justice G.P. Singh's treatise, summed up the following principles applicable to the interpretation of a taxing statute: '(i) In interpreting a taxing statute, equitable considerations are entirely out of place. A taxing statute cann....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... provision, the entirety of Section 139 would have been mentioned in the relevant expression in Section 80AC of the Act which would have included within its sweep the extended period under subsection (4) thereof. But in such provision referring only to sub-section (1) of Section 139 of the Act, the reference to the other provisions of Section 139 must be understood to have been excluded. 11. Since the legal issue raised by the appellant is directly covered in the judgment of Shelcon Properties P. Ltd. (supra) and the view expressed therein does not require to be revisited notwithstanding the aberration in the case of S.R. Batliboi Associates (supra), the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. ITAT No.385 of 2016 and GA No.690 of 2018 stand dismissed 7.3 In the above decision, the appellant raised a legal question upon claim for the benefit conferred under Section 80-IB of the Act being declined on the ground that the appellant did not file its return for the relevant assessment year within the period prescribed under Section 139 (1) of the Act and the deduction was denied for not following the mandatory requirement of section 80AC of the Act. In the case on hand, the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... errors apparent from the return of income and patent from the record. Thus to say that the scope of 'incorrect claim' should be circumscribed and restricted by the Explanation which employs the term 'entry' would, in my view, not be correct and the provision must be given full and unfettered play. The explanation cannot curtail or restrict the main thrust or scope of the provision and due weightage as well as meaning has to be attributed to the purposes of section 143(1)(a) of the Act. 8. The provisions of section 80AC(ii) make it clear that any deduction that is claimed under Part C of Chapter VIA would be admissible only if the return of income in that case were filed within the prescribed due date. Thus no claim under any of the provisions of Part C of Chapter VIA would be admissible in the case of a belated return. There is no dispute on this position. The date of filing of a return of income would be apparent on the face of return and upon a perusal thereof, it would be clear as to whether the return is a valid return, having been filed within the statutory time limit, or a belated one. This is mechanical exercise and one that can be carried out by the CPC, ....