9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 849X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd [ 2021 (4) TMI 1169 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] Similar issue was adjudicated by the Tribunal in the case of Unagatla Large Sized Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., Chagallu Mandal [ 2023 (3) TMI 1386 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM] against the assessee, relying on the decision in the case of AA520 Veerappampalayam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd [ 2021 (4) TMI 1169 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] - Decided against assessee. - I.T.A. No. 23/Viz/2023 - - - Dated:- 14-7-2023 - Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon ble Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri C Subrahmanyam, AR For the Respondent : Shri O.N. Hari Prasada Rao, DR ORDER PER SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER : Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h no sufficient cause could be adduced by the assessee. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds : 1 . The orders passed under the provisions of section 250 of I.T. Act is contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case. 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) (in short CIT(A) ) erred in confirming the action of AO in denying the claim of deduction u/s 80P of the IT Act amounting to Rs. 3,94,896/-. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) failed to recognize that assessee did claim the benefit u/s 80P of the IT Act in the return of income filed u/s 139(4) of the IT Act, but CIT(A) rejected the benefit stating that the return was not filed u/s 139(1) of the IT Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Ld.CIT(A) injudiciously. The Ld.AR contended that adjustment for disallowance u/s 80P cannot be made while processing the return u/s 143(1), as it is outside the scope of section 143(1). The Ld.AR further contended that claim for deduction u/s 80P cannot be denied for the sole reason that the return was filed beyond the due date u/s 139(1). The return of income was filed on 17.11.2020, within the extended time u/s 139(4) of the Act, which is an extension of section 139(1). The Ld.AR further contended that there was no provision incorporated u/s 143(1) of the Act to resort to adjustment on the claim of deduction u/s 80P of the Act prior to the amendment made by Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021. Since the assessee s case relates to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion incorporated u/s 143(1) of the Act to resort to adjustment on the claim of deduction u/s 80P of the Act. Since the instant case relates to the impugned assessment year 2019-20, the order passed by the CPC, Bangalore u/s 143(1), denying the claim of deduction u/s 80P is against the provisions of law. Now, so far as the deduction u/s 80P is concerned, I have gone through the provisions of section 80AC(ii) amendment, which made it clear that any deduction that is claimed under para c of Chapter VI A would be admissible, only if the return of income in that case is filed within the prescribed due date. Therefore, no claim under any of the provisions of para c of Chapter VIA would be admissible in the case of belated return. The Ld.CIT( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, the contention of the assessee that the amendment made to section 143(1)(a)(v) is applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2021 has no application in the present case on hand, since the assessee made incorrect claim, according to the decision rendered by the Hon ble High Court of Madras. Therefore, the case laws relied on by the Ld.AR has no application to the instant case. Hence, I am of the view that the disallowance u/s 80P of the Act has been rightly made by the CPC and upheld by the Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, the grounds raised by the assessee are liable to be dismissed. In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
