TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 1311
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... pursuing the material on record, the delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income declaring total income at Rs. 'Nil' after claiming deduction u/s 80P of the Income-tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 7,35,190/-. The return was processed by the CPC, Bangalore u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act, denying the deduction claimed u/s 80P for the reason that the return of income was not filed with the due date. 4. In its appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee contended that though amendment by the Finance Act 2018 in section 80AC, any society claiming deduction under section 80P has to furnish the return of income with due date as specified u/s 139(1) of the Act, at the same time, such deduction cannot be disallowed while processing the return of income under section 143(1) of the Act as existing at the relevant point in time as clause (v) to 143(1)(a) enabling such disallowance has been introduced only by the Finance Act, 2021 which is effective from 01/04/2021 i.e, from assessment year 2021-22 onwards and doesn't apply to the impugned assessment year. 5. By virtue of the impugned order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sallowance in question, in the order u/s 143(1) of the Act. For this, we find support from the decision of the Coordinate Chandigarh Benches in case of 'The Lanjani Cooperative Agri Service Society Ltd., VPO Lanjani, Kangra (HP) vs. The DCIT (CPC) Bangaluru' (supra) wherein the relevant findings read as under: "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 to file return of income within the due date of filing of ITR as provided in Section 80AC of the IT Act, 19....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return; (v) disa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 assessee was very fact specific. The assessee therein was canvassing that u/s 143(1)....