TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 1566
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be quashed. 1.2. The ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in passing the Ex parte order and confirming the order of the ld. AO without providing adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard and not considering the material on record in the gross breach of natural justice. Hence the same entire addition may kindly be deleted and the assessment order may kindly be quashed. 3. Rs. 3,13,541/-: The ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,13,541/- made by the ld. AO by disallowing the deduction u/s 80P which was made without any basis and also erred in not considering the vital facts and material available on record in their true perspective and sense. Hence the addition so made by the ld. AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is also being contrary to the real facts of the case and not according to the provision of law, hence the same is illegal, bad in law, against the principle of natural justice the same may kindly be deleted in full. 4. The ld AO has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging the interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ins to the sole issue of denying the deduction claimed as per section 80P of the Act while processing the return of Income under section 143(1) of the Act. Therefore, all grounds of appeal are being clubbed and adjudicated together. 6.2 It has been observed that the AO disallowed the deduction claimed by the appellant under section 80P of the Act because the tax return was filed after the due date specified in section 139(1) of the Act. According to Section 139(1) of the Act, the due date for filing the return in the case of the appellant for the Assessment Year 2018-19 was September 30, 2018, and it was further extended to October 31, 2018 by CBDT's notification no 225/358/2018/ITA-II dated 08-10-2018. The term 'due date' is explicitly defined within Section 139(1) itself, leaving no room for ambiguity or dispute regarding the filing deadline. 6.3 In the instant case the Return was filed on 23.12.2018 u/s 139(4) of the Act. It is essential to clarify here that while returns filed in accordance with the various sections of the Act are deemed valid returns, the key requirement for granting the deduction under Part C of Chapter VIA of the Act is defined ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ity to effectuate adjustments predicated on errors glaringly evident within the income tax return Section 143(1)(a)(ii) states that an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return, may also be adjusted before processing the return. A deduction claim would be considered incorrect if any information within the return renders it so, such as the date of the filing of the Return. In this regard, reliance is placed on the order of the Hon'ble High Court, Madras in the case of Veerappampalayam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited Vs DCIT (07.04.2021), in which the Hon'ble Court held that the belated filing of a return amounts to an "incorrect claim" under section 143(1)(a):- 'The scope of an 'intimation' under Section 143 (1) (a) of the Act, extends to the making of adjustments based upon errors apparent from the return of income and patent from the record. Thus, to say that the scope of 'incorrect claim' should be circumscribed and restricted by the Explanation which employs the term 'entry' would, in my view, not be correct and the provision must be given full and unfettered play. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mption under section 80P of the Act. 6.9 Hence, there is no flaw in the AO's decision to disallow the appellant's deduction claim under section 80P while processing the return under section 143(1) of the Act. Consequently, all the raised appeal grounds are rejected. 7. As a result, the appeal is hereby dismissed.'' 2.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed for deletion of addition by submitting following written submission. "1. No denial of exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) for the reason not filling the ITR u/s 139(1): 1. It is submitted that ld. AO has disallowed the exemption on the ground that the assessee has not filed its ROI u/s 139(1). The reason of not filing of the same are that as the assessee is a Govt. Cooperative Society and the accounts could not prepared the timely, also from March 2020 to till return filling there was Covid-19 Pandemic period it is also facts assessee's case falls u/s 80P admittedly. In the provisions of section 80P no where it has been held or provided that if the assessee or its income/receipts comes under the provision of Sec. 80P, the exemption shall not be allowed if assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f which the information required to be furnished under this Act to substantiate such entry has not been so furnished; or (iii) in respect of a deduction, where such deduction exceeds specified statutory limit which may have been expressed as monetary amount or percentage or ratio or fraction 7.1 A joint reading of the above provisions makes it evident that the claim of deduction under section 80P of the Act cannot be allowed the assessee, if the assessee does not file its return of income within the due date stipulated under section 139(1) of the Act w.e.f. assessment year 2018-19 onwards. However, we also note that amendment has been introduced in section 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act to provide that the claim of deduction under section 80P of the Act can be denied to the assessee, in case the assessee does not file its return of income within the time prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act with effect from 01-04-2021 and does not apply to the impugned assessment year i.e. assessment year 2019-20 relevant to financial year 2018-19. Accordingly, in our considered view, denial of claim under section 80P of the Act would not come within the purview of prima facie adju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i Co-Operative Agri Service Society Ltd. (CPC) v. DCIT [2023] 146 taxmann.com 468 (Chandigarh- Trib.), the ITAT held that the enabling provisions of sub- clause (v) of section 143(1) providing for disallowance of deduction under section 80P due to late filing of return having been introduced by Finance Act, 2021 effective from 1-4-2021, disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80P during relevant years 2018-19 and 2019-20 on grounds of late filing of return was unjustified 7.4 We note that the instant case, there was a delay in filing the return of income by the assessee for the assessment year 2019-20 and return of income was filed within due date permissible u/s 139(4) of the Act, in which the claim for deduction u/s 80P of the Act was made. Therefore, looking into the totality of facts, we are of the view that claim of deduction u/s 80P of the Act cannot be denied to the assessee only on the basis that the assessee did not file return of income its return of income within due date u/s 139(1) of the Act, in light of the discussion and judicial precedents highlighted above. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 2018, any deduction is admissible under any provision of this Chapter under the heading "CD educations in respect of certain incomes." no such deduction shall be allowed to him unless he furnishes a return of this income for such assessment year on or before the due date specified under sub-section (1) of Section 139.]" On a perusal of the aforesaid statutory provision, it transpires that sub-section (ii) of Section 80AC of the Act as was amended vide the Finance Act, 2018 w.e.f. 01.04.2018 contemplated, that no deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act would be admissible unless the assessee had furnished his return of income on or before the "due date" as specified under sub-section (1) of Section 139 of the Act. At the first blush, the view taken by the A.O who had vide his intimation issued u/s.143(1) dated 25.06.2019 disallowed the assessee's claim of deduction u/s.80P for the reason that it had belatedly filed its return of income, i.e., beyond the stipulated time period provided u/s.139(1) of the Act appeared to be correct, but then we are afraid that the fact is not so as it so appears. As stated by the Ld. AR, and, rightly so, the amendment in the machiner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d not shown any claim or deduction in the ROI filed and claim the same during the course of assessment proceedings even although during the course of appellate proceedings. The Hon'ble courts has allowed the same by stating that if the assessee is entitled for any claim as per law cannot be denied for the reason that he has not claimed in the ROI. For this purpose, kindly refer. 6.1. In the case of Amina Ismi lRangari vs. ITO (2017) 51 CCH 0595 MumcTrib it has been held that Capital gains-Capital gain on transfer of certain capital assets not to be charged in case of investment in residential house-Rejection of claim of exemption-Case of assessee was re-opened and notice u/s 148 was issued-Assessee filed her return of income declaring taxable income after claiming exemption u/s 54F against 'Long-term capital gains' arising from sale of shares-AO held that share transaction entered into by assessee resulting in long term capital gains were not genuine-Since long-term capital gains were not treated to be genuine, AO also rejected claim of assessee for exemption u/s 54F-CIT(A) held that, rejection of claim of exemption u/s 54F by AO, was in order-Held, section 54F, neither pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the above discussions that the deduction u/s 80P has been denied to the assessee only for the reason that the assessee has not filed the ITR within the time limit provided u/s 139(1). However on perusal of the circulars and various judgments provided by the ld. AR, it is clear that the deduction u/s 80P is allowable if the Return of income for the A.Y. 2018-19 and 2019-20 is filed beyond the time limit u/s 139(1) as the Co-ordinate bench in the case of Lunidhar Seva Sahkari Mandali Ltd. vs. ASSESSING OFFICER (CPC) ITA No. 202/Rjt/2022 February 20, 2023 (2023) 67 CCH 0398 Rajkot Trib (2023) 200 ITD 0014 (Rajkot-Trib) Asst. Year 2019-20 has held as under:- "7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. In the instant facts, admittedly the assessee did not file return of income within the time permissible under section 139(1) of the Act. However, the assessee filed its return of income belatedly on 30-11-2020 and claimed deduction of Rs. 2,22,704/- under section 80P of the Act. The issue for consideration before us is that whether once the return of income is filed beyond the prescribed date under section 139(1) of the Act, can the deduction unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thin the time prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act with effect from 01-04-2021 and does not apply to the impugned assessment year i.e. assessment year 2019-20 relevant to financial year 2018-19. Accordingly, in our considered view, denial of claim under section 80P of the Act would not come within the purview of prima facie adjustment under section 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act, for the simple reason that the section was not in force during the period under consideration i.e. assessment year 2019-20. 7.2 The second issue for consideration is that whether the case of the assessee would fall within the purview of prima facie adjustment under section 143(1)(a)(ii)(an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return). In our view, the scope of the adjustments that can be made under the said provision has been elaborated in the Explanation to the aforesaid section, which 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....80P of the Act cannot be denied to the assessee only on the basis that the assessee did not file return of income its return of income within due date u/s 139(1) of the Act, in light of the discussion and judicial precedents highlighted above. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 22-02-2023." We also take into consideration the order of ITAT, Raipur Bench in the case of Jila Alp Sankhyak Bachat Sahakari Sakh Samiti Maryadit vs. DCIT in ITA No. 143/RPR/2022 December 15, 2022 (2023) 221 TTJ 0404 (Raipur) wherein it has been held as under:- ''9. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the issue in hand, and find substance in the claim of the Ld. AR that though the amendment disabling an assessee to claim deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act was incorporated in Section 80AC of the Act vide the Finance Act, 2018 w.e.f. 01.04.2018, but as no such amendment was made available in section 143(1)(a) of the Act till 01.04.2021, therefore, no adjustment to the returned income of the assessee to the said effect could have been carried out during the year under consideration i.e. A.Y.2018-19. To sum up, it i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e" specified in sub-section (1) of Section 139 of the Act was made available only vide the Finance Act, 2021, w.e.f. 01.04.2021 i.e. from A.Y.2021-22 onwards. On the basis of the aforesaid position of law, I concur with the claim of the Ld. AR that as the pre-amended Section 143(1)(a)(v) jeopardized the allowability of an assessee's claim for deduction only qua those claimed under Section 10A, 80-IA, 80-IAB, 80-IB, 80-IC, 80-ID or 80-IE of the Act, and Section 143(1)(a)(v) was only post- amendment that was made available on the statute vide the Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021 been made compatible, and in fact workable, to facilitate a disallowance contemplated u/s. 80P w.e.f. A.Y.2021-22, therefore, it is beyond comprehension that as to how any such adjustment could have been made by the CPC, Bengaluru vide an intimation issued u/s. 143(1) of the Act, dated 25.06.2019 for the year under consideration, i.e., A.Y.2018-19. On the basis of my aforesaid deliberations I find favour with the claim of the Ld. AR that as the CPC, Bengaluru had clearly traversed or, in fact exceeded its jurisdiction for disallowing u/s. 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act the assessee's claim for deduction u/s. 80P ....