TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 1582
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eferring to the record submitted that in the facts of the present case also, the deduction claimed u/s 80P disallowed by the AO in terms of the amendment carried out in Section 80AC by Finance Act, 2018 has been a subject matter of consideration of the ITAT wherein considering the amendments of Section 143(1)(a) by the Finance Act, 2021, it has been held that the AO in the year under consideration did not enjoy the powers to so make a disallowance in the manner made. This fact, it was submitted, has been considered by the ITAT at length in the order cited. Accordingly, relying upon the decisions taken into consideration therein the provisions of the Act applicable at the relevant point of time, he would rely upon the said order. 4. The ld. Sr. DR Ms. Amanpreet Kaur appearing on behalf of the Revenue invited attention to Section 80AC of the Act on the basis of which the disallowance was carried out. The ld. Sr. DR relying on the impugned order further relied upon the decision dated 07.04.2021of the Madras High Court in the case of Veerappampalayam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. Vs DCIT W.P. No.7038 of 2020. 5. It is seen that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 disallowance. This fact, it was submitted, has been considered by the ITAT at length in the order cited. Accordingly, relying upon the decisions taken into consideration therein the provisions of the Act applicable at the relevant point of time, he would rely upon the said order. 4. The ld. Sr. DR Ms. Amanpreet Kaur appearing on behalf of the Revenue invited attention to Section 80AC of the Act on the basis of which the disallowance was carried out. The ld. Sr. DR relying on the impugned order further relied upon the decision dated 07.04.2021of the Madras High Court in the case of Veerappampalayam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. Vs DCIT W.P. No.7038 of 2020. 4.1. It is seen that this decision has been noticed and has also been considered and held to be non applicable and relevant in Lanjani Cooperative Agri Service Society Ltd. Vs DCIT & others (cited supra).Attention of the ld. Sr. DR was invited to the discussion carried out in para 14.3 and 14.4 of the said order. &nb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeal 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 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, 1961. Section 80AC was amended by Finance Act, 2018. From AY. 2018-19, all the deductions falling under the heading 'C of Chapter V....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 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) disallowance of deduction claimed un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ustoms 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 assessee was very fact specific. T....