TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 1571
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the issue is fully covered in favour of the assessee by virtue of order dated 30.08.2022 in ITA 332 to 338/CHD/2021 in the case of Lanjani Co-operative Agri Service Society Ltd. Vs DCIT & others in ITA 332/CHD/2021. In the said backdrop, the ld. AR referring to the record submitted that in the facts of the present case also, the assessee had claimed deduction u/s 80P which had been disallowed by the AO taking cognizance of the amendment carried out in Section 80AC by Finance Act, 2018. Referring to the provisions of the Act it was submitted that at the time of passing of the order, no such power was vested on the AO by the Income Tax Act. The AO was empowered to do so for the first time only by virtue of the amendment of Section 143(1)(a) wherein sub-clause (2) was amended by the Finance Act, 2021, thus, w.e.f. 2020-21 assessment year the AO was empowered by the Income Tax Act to make such a disallowance. It was submitted that only after that the CPC, Bangalore acting as the AO can be said to be vested with the jurisdiction to make a disallowance on the grounds where the return was filed beyond the due date. Before the said amendment the AO did not have the power to make this dis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....21 i.e. from the assessment year 2021-22. It has been pleaded that prior to this, the AO was not vested with powers u/s 143(1) to disallow deduction u/s 80P on the grounds that the return was not filed within the time allowed u/s 139(1). However, the said view did not find favour with the First Appellate Authority. 6. We have seen that the said issue has come up for consideration before the ITAT in the aforesaid decision cited. We have seen that the relevant provision as it then stood and the subsequent amendment carried out by the Finance Act, 2021 have been considered therein. We have also seen that the decisions relied upon by the Revenue have also been considered at length in the order of the ITAT. We further note that no distinguishing fact, decision or provision of law has been referred to by the ld. Sr.DR for our consideration in order to canvass a contrary view. Accordingly, following the precedent available, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. For ready reference, the relevant extract from the impugned order para 14 and 15 is extracted as under : 14. I have heard the submissions and perused the material on record. Since heavy reliance has been placed by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant filed its return on 13.10.2018 i.e. after the due date for filing of ITR. Appellant had claimed deduction u/s 80P of Rs. 1,11,421/-. As discussed above Section 80P falls under the heading 'C of Chapter VIA of the Act. Therefore, from AY. 2018-19 and onwards, any assessee claiming deduction u/s 80P has to file its return within due date specified u/s 139(1) of the Act to avail such deduction as required u/s 80AC of the Act. In the present case, the Appellant did not file its return within the due date prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act for AY. 2018-19, therefore, the AO rightly disallowed deduction u/s 80P of Rs. 1,11,421/- in intimation u/s 143(1). Thus, the action of AO in disallowing deduction u/s 80P is upheld. Grounds of Appeal 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng 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 30.07.2018 in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import) Vs M/s Dilip Kumar & Co. & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 3327 of 2007 relied upon by the ld. 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 admittedly contained chemical ingredients for animal feed. The concessional rate of duty under the 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&....