2006 (7) TMI 190 - HC - Income Tax

Assessee, co-operative society - section 80P(2)(a)(iii) has been amended with retrospective effect w.e.f. April 1, 1968, by which deduction was restricted (only in respect of income earned for marketing of the agricultural produce grown by the members of the assessee-society)- Tribunal was right in law in holding that the law on the date of passing the order u/s 143(1)(a) will apply and not the law on the date of filing the return of income hence deduction u/s 80P not allowable

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of law under section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding deduction claimed under section 80P(2)(a)(iii) and applicability of law at the time of processing the return.

Analysis:
The judgment addressed four appeals concerning the interpretation of law under section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, specifically focusing on the deduction claimed under section 80P(2)(a)(iii). The assessee contended that the law applicable should be as it stood on the date of filing the return, not on the date of processing. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer correctly disallowed the deduction under section 143(1)(a) based on the amended law applicable to the assessment year. The Tribunal emphasized that the Assessing Officer must apply the law in existence at the time of processing the return, not when the return was filed. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the retrospective amendment challenged in court allowed for different interpretations, affirming that the law as amended was applicable. The judgment cited precedents to support the decision, dismissing the appeals based on the correctness of the prima facie adjustment made by the Assessing Officer.

The judgment further discussed the applicability of a Supreme Court case where additional tax was levied under section 143(1A) of the Act. It differentiated the case at hand, emphasizing that the assessee was not penalized for default but rather the levy of additional tax was set aside following the Supreme Court's ruling. The judgment highlighted that the levy of additional tax must not punish the assessee for no fault of their own. The Tribunal concluded that no substantial question of law arose in the appeals and dismissed them accordingly.

Additionally, the judgment addressed the assessee's plea for condonation of delay in filing the appeals. Since the appeals were dismissed on merit, the court did not find it necessary to delve into the delay issue. The judgment provided a comprehensive analysis of the legal interpretations regarding the deduction claimed under section 80P(2)(a)(iii) and the correct application of law under section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, based on existing precedents and legislative intent.