TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Appellant : Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. For the Respondent : Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. CIT-(DR) ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, A.M.: 1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), Lucknow dated 29.03.2024 for the assessment year 2019-20. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are as under: - (1) That the Ld. C.I.T. (A), NFAC, erred on facts and in law in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 1,63,83,734/- u/s 80P of I. T. Act made by CPC Bengaluru u/s 143(1)(a)ii) of I. T. Act. (2) That though Assessee Society submitted belated Return, but Ld. C.I.T.(A) failed to appreciate that Section 80AC of I. T. Act, gave power to insist upon the compliance of the said provision vested in the A.O. only on the amendment of Clause -(v) of Section 143(1)(a) vide Finance Act, 2021, hence in the present year, no disallowance should be made. (3) The Ld. CIT (A), NFAC failed to appreciate that during A.Y.-2019-20 in the absence of the enabling provisions being clause(v) of Section 143(1)(a) of I. T. Act, the Ld. A. O. CPC lacked jurisdiction to make disallowance of claim for deduction u/s 80P in the Order u/s 143(1) dated 16.07.2020. (4) The Ld. C.L.T. (A), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1- Written Submission 2- Case Laws (i) Copy of order reported in 149 Taxmann.com 28 in case of Lunidhar Seva Sahkari Mandali Limited Vs Assessing Officer (CPC). (ii) Copy of order reported in 146 taxmann.com 468 (Chandigarh-Trib.) IN THE ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH 'SMC' in the appeal of Lanjani Co-Operative Agri Service Society Ltd. (CPC) v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, CPC* (iii) Copy of Order reported in THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A (SMC) BENCH, KOLKATA I.T.A. No. 716/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-2020. (iv) Copy of Order reported in THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH 'G', NEW DELHI INITA No.2090/Del/2022 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) in the appeal of Sahakari Ganna Vikas Samiti, Sikri Gate Chandausi, Sambhal vs. ITO-2(5), Chandausi Uttar Pradesh. 3- Copy of ITR Acknowledgement of A.Y. 2019-20 4- Copy of Memorandum explaining the Provisions of Finance Bill. 3. At the time of hearing before us, the Assessee was represented by Shri Shubham Rastogi, Authorized Representative ( AR ) and Revenue was represented by Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Sr. Departmental Representative ( DR ). The Ld. AR for the Assessee drew our attention to Section 143(1)(a) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unsel also referred to the judgement of Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in the case of Kishorepur Paschimanchal SKUS Limited vs. ITO (ITA No.716/Kol/2022) order dated 22.05.2023 to buttress his stand. The Learned Counsel thus urged for suitable relief. 4. The Learned DR for the Revenue, on the other hand, relied upon the action of the Revenue authorities and submitted that in view of express provisions of Section 80AC of the Act applicable to A.Y. 2019- 20 in question, the Revenue authorities were fully justified in denying the deduction where the return was filed beyond the date specified under Section 139(1) of the Act. Learned DR thus submitted that no interference with the order of CIT(A) is called for. 5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The denial of benefit of deduction under Section 80P of the Act in response of belated return is in issue. In the instant case, the return was filed belatedly under Section 139(4) of the Act. While drawing the intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act, the CPC, Bengaluru has denied the claim of deduction under Section 80P of the Act owing to ROI filed after due date. The assessee sought rectification thereof under Section 154 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich includes deduction under section 80P of the Act), can be made if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139. This amendment has been introduced w.e.f. 1-4-2021. Accordingly, the above amendment would not apply to the impugned assessment year. Further, section 143(1)(ii) of the Act permits adjustment in case of an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return. However, Explanation to the aforesaid section specifies the following cases where the claim made in the return of income can be said to be incorrect for the purposes of this sub-section: (a) an incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return shall mean a claim, on the basis of an entry, in the return, (i) of an item, which is inconsistent with another entry of the same or some other item in such return; (ii) in respect of which the information required to be furnished under this Act to substantiate such entry has not been so furnished; or (iii) in respect of a deduction, where such deduction exceeds specified statutory limit which may have been expressed as monetary amount or percentage or ratio or fraction. 7.1 A joint r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further proceedings in relation to such assessments are pending in statutory hierarchy of adjudication in terms of provisions of Act. In the case of ASR Engg. Projects Ltd. [2019] 111 taxmann.com 49 (Hyderabad - Trib.), the ITAT held that to be eligible to make claim under section 80-IA or any other section of Chapter VI A, assessee should have filed return of income under section 139(1) and even if it did not make claim for deduction in original return and subsequently file revised return making such claim, its claim for deduction under section 80-IA is maintainable. Therefore, where assessee had filed return under section 139(1), it was entitled to claim deduction under section 80-IA even if such claim was not made in original return but subsequently in revised return filed in response to notice issued under section 153A. In the case of Lanjani Co-Operative Agri Service Society Ltd. (CPC) v. DCIT [2023] 146 taxmann.com 468 (Chandigarh - Trib.), the ITAT held that the enabling provisions of sub-clause (v) of section 143(1) providing for disallowance of deduction under section 80P due to late filing of return having been introduced by Finance Act, 2021 effective from 1-4-2021, dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion u/s 80P(2)(a) by making adjustment u/s 143(1)(a)(ii)- Incorrect claim for reasons being return was not filed within due date. That the disallowance has been made merely because the return was filed beyond the due date specified u/s 139(1). The due date of filing ITR was 31.10.2019 but the ITR was filed on 01.11.2019 after the delay of merely 25 minutes and was uploaded at 009:25:43 hrs on 01.11.2019. Copy of acknowledgement for filing of ITR is at page of the paper book. 4.1 The Ld. Sr. DR for Revenue relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 5. We have heard both the sides. We have perused the material on records. For the sake of clarity, the relevant provision under section 80AC of the Act and Section 143(1)(a) of the Act are reproduced as under: - 80AC Where in computing the total income of an assessee of the previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 2006 or any subsequent assessment year, any deduction is admissible under section 80-IA or section 80-IAB or section 80-IB or section 80IC [or section 80-ID or section 80IE], no such deduction shall be allowed to him unless he furnishes a return of his income for such assessment year on or b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|