TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 1637
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee under section 80P was denied assessing the income of the assessee at Rs. 17,35,347/-. The reason for denial of deduction as mentioned in the intimation under section 143(1)(a)(ii) is that the return was not filed within due date. Aggrieved the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A) who confirmed the said addition. 3. The ld. AR submitted that the deduction under section 80P could not be denied under section 143(1)(a)(ii) since it was not a claim wrongly made by the assessee in the return of income. The ld. AR further submitted that the amendment to section 143(1)(a)(v) to deny the deduction under Chapter-VIA for belated filing of return was brought into statute w.e.f. 01.04.2021 and therefore the AO could not deny the said benefit to the assessee for AY 2019-20. With regard to the provisions of section 80AC which states that the deduction under Chapter-VIA would not be allowed if the return is not filed within the due date under section 139(1) the ld. AR submitted that though the said amendment is effective from 01.04.2018 the same could not done in the intimation under section 143(1)(a) since the consequential amendment is brought into the said section only f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on or before the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139. 6. From the above amended provisions it is clear that an assessee cannot claim deduction u/s.80P after 01.04.2018 if the return of income is not filed within the due date prescribed u/s.139(1). In assessee's case it is an admitted fact that the return of income is filed belatedly on 29.07.2020 claiming the deduction u/s.80P for an amount of Rs. 17,35,347/- which has been denied in the intimation u/s.143(1)(a). Though as per the provisions of section 80AC, the assessee is denied the deduction u/s.80P it is also important to examine whether the same can be done u/s.143(1)(a). In this regard we will look at the provisions of section 143(1)(a) for the relevant AY which reads 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 in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ective only from 01.04.2021. Accordingly it is clear that the denial of deduction u/s.80P could not be done u/s.143(1)(a)(v). 8. Now coming to whether the deduction can be denied u/s.143(1)(ii) which permits an adjustment in case of an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return. The explanation to section 143(1) specifies what is to be construed as an "incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return" as extracted above, from the perusal of which it is clear that, the scope of the adjustments that can be made under the said provision does not include denial of deduction claimed by the assessee in case the assessee does not furnish its return of income within the date stipulated under section 139(1) of the Act. The Explanation to the said section specifically provides for cases/instances when the claim made by the assessee could be said to be "incorrect". Therefore, in our considered view, the case of the assessee would also not fall within the purview of prima facie adjustment under section 143(1)(a)(ii). 9. In this regard it is relevant to notice the decision of the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Lanjan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t in section 80-AC by Finance Act, 2018 came into play only in 2020-21 assessment year. Thus, no doubt section 80AC as amended by the Finance Act, 2018 mandated that even for claiming deduction claimed u/s. 80P, the return of income was to be filed before the due date as specified under sub-section (1) of section 139. However, for the AO to insist upon the compliance by way of making a disallowance, the power was vested in the said Authority only vide Finance Act, 2021. Hence, in the absence of the enabling provisions, the CPC Bangalore lacked the jurisdiction to make this disallowance in the order u/s. 143(1). Accordingly, on facts, I find that the appeal of the assessee has to be allowed. 14.3 Before parting, it may also be relevant to refer to the decision of the Apex Court dated 30-7-2018 in the case of Dilip Kumar & Co. (supra) relied upon by the Id. Sr. DR. On a reading therefrom, it is seen that the issue for consideration before the Hon'ble Court was whether the denial of benefit of Customs Notification No. 20/1999 was justified to the party who pleaded that the benefit of concessional rates for import of animal feed should also be available to Import which adm....