TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 270
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad mentioned in Form No. 35 the e-mail address belonging to Shri K.S. Venkat Rao, a senior member of the society who was designated as Chief Executive Officer, for communication of notices. In the year 2024, after the retirement of Shri Venkat Rao, the society updated its official e-mail ID. However, in the interregnum, the Ld. First Appellate Authority passed the appellate order on 31.03.2024 and transmitted it to the earlier e-mail ID associated with Shri K.S. Venkat Rao. Since he had already left the society, the order did not reach the management of the assessee-society. After the retirement of Shri K.S. Venkat Rao, Shri Raghavendra Rao, the President of the society was looking after the tax matters of the society. The assessee came to know of the appellate order only on 30.12.2024, when it received a recovery communication from the Revenue authorities. It was explained that during the intervening period Shri Raghavendra Rao had been suffering from cardiac problems followed by spinal disorder, for which he was under medical treatment and temporarily incapacitated. After his recovery, he arranged to file the appeal without further delay. Medical records substantiating his condit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the scrap of adjustments that can be made in the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the disallowance of the deduction of Rs. 36,70,431/- claimed u/s 80P of the Act is not justified. 4. Further, without prejudice to Ground No. 2 and Ground No. 3 the income of the appellant is exempt as per the 'Principle of Mutuality' and hence the same is not liable tax. 5. Charging of interest of Rs. 1,71,300/- u/s 234A Rs. 2,51,354/- u/s 234B and Rs. 57,672/- u/s 234C of the Act is not justified. 6. Any other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing with the leave of the Hon'ble Tribunal." 6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a cooperative society which filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2019-20 on 27.11.2020, declaring total income at Nil, after claiming deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") amounting to Rs. 36,70,431/-. The return of income of the assessee was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act by the Centralised Processing Centre ("CPC") on 02.02.2021, wherein the CPC disallowed the deduction claimed under Section 80P of the Act, on the ground....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Tribunal in the case of Narhari Maharaj Manjoor Sahakari Sanstha Ltd. v. ITO, ITA No.1458/PUN/2025, order dated 16.07.2025 and Pahalampur Samabay Krishi Unnayan Ltd. v. ITO, ITA No.887/Kol/2025, order dated 02.09.2025, wherein under identical facts, the Tribunal held that disallowance of deduction under Section 80P of the Act cannot be made through adjustment under Section 143(1). Finally, the Ld. AR prayed before the Bench to delete the addition of Rs. 36,70,431/-. 9. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative ("Ld. DR") supported the order of the Ld. First Appellate Authority and submitted that the CPC had rightly disallowed the deduction under Section 80P of the Act since the assessee failed to file its return within the due date prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Act. He contended that the disallowance was in conformity with Section 143(1)(a)(ii) which permits adjustment in respect of incorrect claims apparent from the return of income. Accordingly, the Ld. DR prayed before the Bench to uphold the order of the Ld. First Appellate Authority. 10. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The short issue f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the Finance Act, 2021 with effect from 01.04.2021, to expand its scope to include any deduction claimed under the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading "C- Deductions in respect of certain incomes", which thereby brought Section 80P of the Act within its fold. In the present case, the assessment year involved is 2019-20; therefore, the amended provision would not apply retrospectively. Hence, the CPC had no jurisdiction to make the impugned adjustment under Section 143(1) of the Act disallowing deduction under Section 80P of the Act. In this regard, we have gone through the relevant portion of the order of the Ld. First Appellate Authority placed at page no.7 and 8 of the appellate order, which is to the following effect: In view of the facts, the claim of the appellant of exemption u/s 80 P can be availed only if the return of income was filed in the manner prescribed under the provisions of section 139 of the Act which in turn requires that an assessee claiming exemption of income u/s 80P to file the return of income within the due date prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act. In the absence of any discretionary power neither the assessing authority nor the ap....