9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 345X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 mandated that even for claiming deduction claimed u/s 80P, the return of income was to be filed before the due date as specified under subsection (1) of Section 139. For the AO to insist upon the compliance by way of making a disallowance, the power was vested in the said Authority only vide Finance Act, 2021. Hence, in the absence of the enabling provisions, the CPC Bangalore lacked the jurisdiction to make this disallowance in the order u/s 143(1). In the facts of the present case, admittedly the provision enabling the AO to pass an order relying upon sub-clause (5) of Section 143(1)(a) was not on the Statute for 2018-19 assessment year. Accordingly, for the detailed reasons hereinabove, setting aside the impugned order, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. - ITA No. 332 to 338/CHD/2021 - - - Dated:- 30-8-2022 - Smt. Diva Singh, JM For the Assessee : Shri Vishal Mohan,Advocate For the Revenue : Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr.DR ORDER These seven appeals have been filed by the different assessees pertaining to 2018-19/2019-20 assessment year wherein the correctness of the separate orders dated 28.09.2021, 09.09.2021, 25.09.2021, 25.09.2021, 15.09.2021, 14.09 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Income Tax Act,1961 can be said to be brought in the ambit of this section. However, at the relevant point of time, no such powers were vested with the CPC Bangalore. The enabling provision to do so u/s 143(1) was available on the Statute only by the Finance Act, 2021. Referring to the provisions as they stood in 2018-19 and 2019-20 assessment year, it was argued that as per law, the claim u/s 143(1)(a) could be disallowed by the AO herein CPC Bangalore only on the grounds of arithmetical error or that the assessee had made an incorrect claim etc. but not on the grounds that the return was filed beyond the due date. It was submitted that the assessee Society is eligible for deduction u/s 80P and all informations related to this deduction was correctly provided. Inviting attention to Section 143(1)(a)sub clause (v) as it then stood at the relevant point of time, it was argued there was no mention of Section 80P therein. 6.1 It was re-iterated that only by the Finance Act, 2021 wherein sub-clause (v) of Section 143(1)(a) was amended that the CPC, Bangalore could be said to be vested with the jurisdiction to make a disallowance on the grounds of return filed beyond the due date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11.1 Distinguishing the said decision, it was further submitted that firstly, it was an ex-parte order where the assessee was not present nor heard. It was further argued that the decision rendered was in the context of the prayer in the Writ Petition on facts as available. Attention was also invited to the fact that the petitioners therein were repeatedly found to be noncooperative with the Revenue right from the assessment proceedings stage. For the said purposes, para 9 of the said order was referred to. It was his submission that therein the Court went on to categorically observe that the assessee petitioners did not cooperate and it was noticed that the writ petitions were filed belatedly i.e. after more than 6 to 8 months and only when the Revenue had initiated proceedings for recovering by attaching the bank accounts etc. that the petitioners were found to have approached the Court invoking the writ jurisdiction. 11.2 In the facts of the present case, it was his submission that the none of the assessees have been found to be noncooperative. They have cooperated in the proceedings all along. It is only a case wherein the return was filed late. The assessee has all along ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conduct of the petitioners wherein they had not bothered to respond to the defect notices from the CPC and non cooperation on the part of the petitioners wherein the writ jurisdiction of the Court was also invoked on account of the fact that the Revenue had initiated proceedings for recovery by attachment of bank account and there was a lapse of 6 to 8 months in filing of the writ petitions were all the factors taken into consideration to address the prayer in the Writ proceedings. It is in that factual background that the Court was pleased to hold as under : 9. The conduct of the petitioners is also relevant. Not only have the returns been filed belatedly but the petitioners have also chosen not to co-operate in the conduct of assessment. They are admittedly in receipt of the defect notices from the CPC, but have not bothered to respond to the same. The writ petitions have themselves been filed belatedly and after the elapse of more than six to eight months from the dates of impugned orders, in all cases, it is only when the Revenue has initiated proceedings for recovery by attachment of bank accounts have the petitioners approached this Court. 11.7 Accordingly, it was h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of April, 2006 but before the 1st day of April, 2018, any deduction is admissible under section 80-IA or section 80-IAB or section 80-IB or section 80- IC or or; (ii) the 1st day of April, 2018, any deduction is admissible under any provision of this Chapter under the heading C.-Deductions in respect of certain incomes , no such deduction shall be allowed to him unless he furnishes a return of his income for such assessment year on or before the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139.] d) Thus, from 01.04.2018, the clause(i) of the above section has become inoperative and clause (ii) was introduced which provides that all the deductions falling under the heading 'C of Chapter VIA of the Act will be allowed only when ITR is furnished before the due date specified u/s 139(1) of the Act. This amendment became effective from AY. 2018-19. e) In the present case the due date of filing ITR for AY. 2018-19 was 31.08.2018. However, the Appellant 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact that sub-clause (v) of Section 143(1)(a) was amended by the Finance Act, 2021 wherein instead of reference to Sections 10AA, 80-IA, 80-IAB, 80-IB, 80-IC, 80-ID or Section 80-IE, the provision instead makes a mention of Section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the head C-Deductions in respect of certain incomes . Accordingly, the enabling provisions to address the amendment in Section 80-AC by Finance Act, 2018 came into play only in 2020-21 assessment year. Thus, no doubt Section 80AC as amended by the Finance Act, 2018 mandated that even for claiming deduction claimed u/s 80P, the return of income was to be filed before the due date as specified under subsection (1) of Section 139. However, for the AO to insist upon the compliance by way of making a disallowance, the power was vested in the said Authority only vide Finance Act, 2021. Hence, in the absence of the enabling 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT Vs B.C. Srinivasa Shetty 128 ITR 294 fully supports the view taken. The Court therein at page 299 has held as under : ..The character of the computation provisions in each case bears a relationship to the nature of the charge. Thus, the chagrining section and the computation provisions together constitute an integrated code . When there is a case to which the computation provisions cannot apply at all, it is evident that such a case was not intended to fall within the charging section. Otherwise one would be driven to conclude that while a certain income seems to fall within the charging section there is no scheme of computation for quantify it .. (emphasis supplied) 14.6 In the facts of the present case, admittedly the provision enabling the AO to pass an order relying upon sub-clause (5) of Section 143(1)(a) was not on the Statute for 2018-19 assessment year. Accordingly, for the detailed reasons hereinabove, setting aside the impugned order, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 15. Since in the remaining appeals, the facts, circumstances and position of law continues to remain the same, accordingly, mutatis-mutandis the decision arrived at in ITA 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
