9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 1395X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. Council submitted that in so far as appeal for the assessment year 2013-14, i.e., 682/Mum/2024, assessee is withdrawing the appeal, because in pursuance of application filed u/s. 154 before the CPC, the disallowance u/s. 80P(2)(d) has been removed. Thus, assessee has no grievance. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee in ITA 682/Mum/2024 for A.Y. 2013-14 is dismissed as withdrawn. 2. In so far as appeals for the assessment years 2012-13 & 2014-15, he submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee's appeal on the ground that has been delay of nearly 10 years in the appeal for A.Y. 2012-13 and delay for nearly 8 years for A.Y. 2014-15. Thus appeals has been dismissed on the ground of delay in filling of appeal by the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal before the CIT(A) and therefore, CIT(A) has rightly rejected the appeal on the ground of this delay in filing the appeal. 7. We heard both the parties and also peruse the relevant material based on record. First of all the assessee has explained the reason for delat in filing of the first appeal before CIT(A) that ealier CA of the assessee had filed rectification application u/ 154 before the AO/CPC, then assessee was under bonafide belief that the adjustment would get rectified and even CA also did not advice the society to file an appeal when appliocation was disposed of for certain period. It is later on when demand notice was issued then assessee was advised to file an appeal. Thus, looking to the fact that assessee is cooperative ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore from Charted Accountant, and therefore the due date was 31/10/2012 and 31/10/2014 for the A.Y 2012-23 and 2014 15 respectively and thus assessee had filed the return of income within the due date of under section 139(1). Thus even under amended provision no prima facie adjustment have been made no prima facie adjustment on account of deduction u/s.80P could have been made. In the early provision of adjustment u/s. 143(1)(a) no such disallowance could have been made. Accordingly, we hold that disallowance made by the CPC u/s. 143(1)(a) on the claim of deduction u/s. 80P is beyond the scope of adjustment u/s. 143(1) accordingly the adjustment is deleted. 11. In the result appeal for the A.Y 2012-13 & 2014-15 is allowed and appeal for A. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
