TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 859X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Explanation to the said section 143(1)(a)(ii) specifically provides for cases/instances when the claim made by the assessee could be said to be incorrect . Therefore, in our considered view, the case of the assessee would also not 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). Denial of deduction u/s 80-P of the Act cannot come within the purview of a prima-facie adjustment u/s 143(1) of the Act, especially in light of absence of an enabling provision during the impugned assessment year, which came to be introduced only during the succeeding assessment year. 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, by way of prima facie adjustment u/s 143(1) of the Act - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 187/Rjt/2022 - - - Dated:- 19-7-2023 - Shri Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. A.R. For the Revenue : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned income and not granting deduction of ₹ 5,58,494/- claimed in the return of income under section 80P of the Act, since the return of income was not filed within the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. 4. The assessee filed appeal against the order of Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed assessee s appeal with the following observations: 6.2 The appellant filed the return of income on 28/11/2020 claiming deduction of Rs. 5,58,494/- u/s 80P of the Act and the extended due date for filing of the original return was 31/08/2018. Thus there is a delay of more than one year in filing the return. The CPC disallowed the deduction stating that the appellant is not entitled to deduction on the ground that the appellant filed the return of income beyond the due date mentioned in Sec. 139(1) of the Act. In this regard, Section 80AC of the Act is reproduced below:- Section 80AC Where in computing the total income of an assessee of any previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing on or after (i) the 1st day of April, 2006 but before the 1st day of April, 2018, any deduction is admissible under section 80-1A or section 80-IAB or section 80-1D or section 80- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the language used there in and not de hors the same. No words ought to be added and only the language used ought to be considered so as to ascertain the proper meaning and intent of the legislature The Court is to ascribe natural and ordinary meaning to the words used by the legislature and the Court ought not under any circumstances to substitute its own impression and ideas in place of the legislative intent as his available from a plan reading of the statutory provisions. (ii) In the case of Keshavji Ravji Co. Vs CIT reported in 183 ITR 1 (SC) was held that as long as there is no ambiguity in the statutory language resort to any interpretative process to unfold the legislative intent becomes impermissible The supposed intention of the legislation cannot then appealed to whittle down the statutory language which is otherwise unambiguous if the intendiment is not in the words used is nowhere else The need for interpretation arises when the words used in the statute are on their terms, ambivalent and do not manifest the intent of the legislature. Artificial and unduly latitudinarian rules of construction which, with their general tendency to give the tax payer th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and in law in holding that the assessee is not eligible for claiming deduction under section 80P of the Act for not filing return within the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. In response, Ld. Departmental Representative relied upon the observations made by Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order. 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 28-11-2020 and claimed deduction of ₹ 5,58,494/- 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 under section 80P of the Act be denied to the assessee, by way of adjustment under section 143(1) of the Act. On going through the statutory provisions, we observe that 80AC of the Act provides that no such deduction under section 80P of the Act shall be allowed to an assessee unless he furnishes a return of his income on or before the due date specified un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 made by the assessee could be said to be incorrect . Therefore, in our considered view, the case of the assessee would also not 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). 7.3 We note that in the case of Chirakkal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Ka ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er section 80P was made, therefore, deduction under section 80P could not be denied to assessee only on basis that assessee did not file its return of income within due date prescribed under section 139(1) by way of adjustment u/s 143(1) of the Act. 7.4 Therefore, though section 80AC of the Act does provide for denial of deduction u/s 80-P in case return of income is filed beyond stipulated date u/s 139(1) of the Act, but various judicial precedents have also held that deduction provisions need to be construed liberally . Therefore, denial of deduction u/s 80-P of the Act cannot come within the purview of a prima-facie adjustment u/s 143(1) of the Act, especially in light of absence of an enabling provision during the impugned assessment year, which came to be introduced only during the succeeding assessment year. We, however, wish to point out that we are only concerned or adjudicating on the limited aspect of whether denial of deduction u/s 80-P of the Act can be sustained by way of prima- facie adjustment u/s 143(1) of the Act, and we are not adjudicating or commenting on whether such deduction u/s 80-P of the Act can be disallowed during the course of regular assessment. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|