M/s. Rushi Sanskruti Vividoddeshagal Souhard Sahakari Niyamit, Bagalkot V. The DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

ITA 1043/BANG/2022

AI Insights

The case revolves around the denial of a deduction under section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to the assessee, M/s. Rushi Sanskruti Vividoddeshagal Souhard Sahakari Niyamit, due to the late filing of their income tax return. The assessee filed their return on 29.12.2018, whereas the due date was 31.08.2018. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act, which resulted in a demand for tax due to the disallowance of the claimed deduction. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed, leading to the current appeal before the ITAT. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by the strict interpretation of section 80AC, which requires compliance with the due date for filing returns to avail deductions under section 80P.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 124980 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-01-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 11-01-2023
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 06-11-2022
• Other Referred Cases: The Lanjani Co-operative Agri Service Society Ltd., ITA No.332/CHD/2021, Jila ALP Sankhyak Bachat Sahakari Sakh Samiti Maryadit, ITA No.143/RPR/2022, Meghana Apartment Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., ITA No.612, 613, 614/Mum/2022, CIT Vs. Shelcon Properties (P.) Ltd., [2014] 44 taxmann.com 170 (Calcutta), Janki Vs. CIT (A) NFAC ITA No.944/Mum/2022, M/s. Syndicate Bank Staff Co-operative Society Ltd., Vs. DCIT, CPC, ITAT, Bengaluru Bench, ITA No.1062/Bang/2022, Assessment Year 2018-19, Wipro Ltd. vs Pr. CIT , [2022] 140 taxmann.com 223 (SC), Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC), State of Jharkhand v. Ambay Cement, [2005] 1 SCC 368, Eagle Flask Industries Ltd. v. CCE, 2004 taxmann.com 350 (SC), CIT v. Ace Multi Axes Systems Ltd., [2017] 88 taxmann.com 69/[2018] 252 Taxman 274/400 ITR 141 (SC)/[2018] 2 SCC 158, Commissioner of Customs v. Dilip Kumar & Co., [2018] 9 SCC 1, M/s. Syndicate Bank Staff Co-operative Society Ltd., ITA No.1062/Bang/2022, AA520 Veerappampalayam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, (2022) 138 taxmann.com 571 (Madras)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Set aside
• Section: 43B; 139; 234B; 10B; 143(1); 80P; 250; 139(1); 139(4); 72; 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORESHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1043/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/s. Rushi Sanskruti Vividoddeshagal Souhard SahakariNiyamit, C/o. Kolar Building, Plot No.28, Sector No.32, Behind Basav Mantap, Navanagar, Bagalkot – 587 103. PAN : AABAR4851 Q Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income- tax, CPC, Bagalkot. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Ravishankar, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel. Date of hearing : 12.01.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 27.01.2023 O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 20.09.2022, on the following grounds: 1. The order passed by the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") in so far as it is against the Appellant is opposed to law, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case. ITA No.1043/Bang/2022 Page 2 of 18 2. The appellant denies itself to be assessed at Rs.5,09,329/- as against the returned income of Rs.NIL after claiming deduction under section 8oP of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The authorities below have failed to appreciate that disallowance of deduction under section 8oP of the Act is not a permissible adjustment under section 143(1) under the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The authorities below have failed to appreciate that the delay in filing the return of income shall not disentitle the claim of deduction under section 8oP of the Act since, the requirement to file the return of income within the time specified under section 139(1) of the Act is directory and not mandatory under the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The authorities below have failed to appreciate that the appellant has fulfilled the conditions for claiming deduction under section 801) of the Actand are not justified in invoking the provisions of section 8oAC of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. That there was a reasonable cause for delay in furnishing the return of income for the impugned assessment year under the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act in view of the fact that there is no liability to additional tax as determined by the learned assessing officer. Without prejudice the rate, period and on what quantum the interest has been levied are not in accordance with law and further are not discernible from the order and hence deserves to be cancelled on the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above. 9. In view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of the appeal, the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed and appropriate relief be granted in the interest of justice and equity. ITA No.1043/Bang/2022 Page 3 of 18 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 29.12.2018 declaring income of Rs.5,09,329/- and the same was claimed as deduction under section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The return was processed on 31.05.2019 denying the deduction claimed under Chapter VI-A in section 80P and raised a demand of Rs.1,93,840/-. 3. Aggrieved from the above addition, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under:- 6. Decision: The appellant in its ground of appeal has assailed the AO-CPC in disallowing the deduction of Rs. 509329/- under intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act as the return was filed within, the time provided u/s 139(4) of the Act. The appellant further stated that the said adjustments does not fall within the purview of the prima facie adjustments permissible u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act.The appellant in its ground of appeal has assailed AO-CPC in denying the exemption u/s 80P of the Act. The appellant alleged that the order u/s 143(1) of the Act passed by the AO-CPC is bad in law as provisions of Sec. 143(1)(a)(v) do not provide for denial of deduction u/s 80P of the Act when the return of income is not filed within time limit as provided u/s 139(1) of the Act but u/s 139(4). 6.1 The submission of the appellant is examined. The appellant in its submission has s:ated that it got a communication u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act for proposed adjustment u/s 143(1)(a) in returned income of the deduction claimed of Rs. 509329/- u/s 80P of the Act. It is essential to note that section 143(1)(a) of the Act specifically provides that no adjustments can be made unless an intimation is given to the assessee of such adjustment either in writing or in electronic mode. Therefore, as can be seen the proposed adjustment provided the assessee an opportunity and hence is passed following the good law. And the adjustment made u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act is valid adjustment as far as the legality of it is concerned. Therefore, the action of the AO CPC is correct and is upheld. The ground of appeal is dismissed. 6.1 The factual matrix of the case is that the return of income u/s 139 of the Act was filed by the assessee on 29.12.2018, whereas the extended date for filing the return was 31.8.2018. Therefore, the return was not filed within the due date as provided u/s 139(1) of the Act. Further section 80AC provides that no deduction shall be allowed if the return is not filed within the due date as specified u/s 139(1) of the Act. Section 80AC is reproduced below: "Deduction not to be allowed unless return furnished. ITA No.1043/Bang/2022 Page 4 of 18 BOAC. Where in computing the total income of an assessee of any previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing 9n or after— (i) the 1st day of April, 2006 but before the 1st day of April, 2018, any deduction is admissible under section 80-IA or section 80-lAB or section 80-lB or section 80-IC or section 80-ID or section 80-1E; (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." 6.4 The submission of the appellant is examined in the light of the provisions of above section which clearly in clause (ii) mentions "C- Deduction in respect of certain incomes", which clearly covers deduction u/s 80P of the Act. Therefore, the AO-CPC was correct in denying the exemption u/s 80P of the Act to the assessee as it has not filed the return within the due date as specified u/s 139(1) of the Act. The grounds of appeal are dismissed. 4. Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 5. The learned AR submitted that the CIT(A) is not justified in not allowing deduction under section 80P of the Act by observing that the return has been filed belatedly. The adjustment cannot be made as per section 143(1)(a) of the Act because the enabling provision for making disallowance under section 143(1) of the Act was not in statute and it was brought into the Income Tax Act by the Finance Act, 2021 and he also submitted that the Finance Act, 2020 inserted the provision under section 143(1)(v) of the Act, in which, section 80P was not included and section 80P was included for making disallowance as per section 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2021, therefore, the CPC had no power for making disallowance under Chapter VI-A in section 80P of the Act. The assessee, however made claim as per section 80P of the Act by filing return of income. The CPC has wrongly invoked ITA No.1043/Bang/2022 Page 5 of 18 section 80AC of the Act. It is only a directory in nature but not mandatory and there was sufficient reason for delay in filing return of income. The accounts of the society were audited under Karnataka Co- operative Societies Act and the audit report was signed on 31.08.2018 for the Financial Year 2017-18. After receiving the audit report, the assessee approached to the AR/CA to file returns and his tax consultant filed return of income on 29.12.2018, it was not lapse on the part of the assessee because he was fully dependent on tax consultants, therefore, there was a sufficient cause for delay in filing the returns. In support of his argument, he relied on the following 3 judgments : • The Lanjani Co-operative Agri Service Society Ltd., ITA No.332/CHD/2021 • Jila ALP SankhyakBachatSahakari Sakh Samiti Maryadit, ITA No.143/RPR/2022 • Meghana Apartment Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., ITA No.612, 613, 614/Mum/2022 5. He further submitted that the Tribunal had decided the similar issue in favour of the assessee in the above cited judgments. Accordingly, he requested that the issue may be decided in favour of the assessee. 6. On the other hand, learned DR relied on the order of the lower authorities and submitted that the due date of filing of return was 31.08.2018, whereas the assessee filed return on 29.12.2018, which is ITA No.1043/Bang/2022 Page 6 of 18 beyond the due date for filing the return of income. The section 80AC(ii) of the Act has been amended and if assessee wants to claim deduction under Chapter VI-A under the heading ‘Deduction in respect of certain incomes’ he has to file the return of income within the due date as per section 139(1) of the Act but the assessee did not comply with the provisions of section 80AC of the Act. Therefore, he is not eligible for making claim for deduction under section 80P of the Act. He further submitted that the provision of section 80AC of the Act for getting deduction is mandatory to comply. He further submitted that the CPC can make adjustment under section 143(1)(a) of the Act while processing the return. It is prima facie adjustments made by the CPC on the basis of information furnished by the assessee itself in its return of income, accordingly while processing the return as if the assessee has complied with the provisions of the Act for getting any deduction/relief/rebate or exemption. The CPC will not make any adjustments if the assessee has complied as per the Income Tax Provisions but if there is any non-compliance of the relevant sections/provisions/rules then the assessee is not eligible for exemption/deduction/rebate/relief. In support of his arguments, he relied on the following judgments: • CIT Vs. Shelcon Properties (P.) Ltd., [2014] 44 taxmann.com 170 (Calcutta) • Janki Vs. CIT (A) NFAC ITA No.944/Mum/2022 • M/s. Syndicate Bank Staff Co-operative Society Ltd., Vs. DCIT, CPC, ITAT, Bengaluru Bench, ITA No.1062/Bang/2022, Assessment Year 2018-19. ITA No.1043/Bang/2022 Page 7 of 18 • Wipro Ltd. vs Pr. CIT , [2022] 140 taxmann.com 223 (SC) 6.1. The learned DR further submitted that as per the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court, it has been relied by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No.1062/Bang/2022, in which Hon’ble Court has decided that the CPC can make adjustment while processing the return under section 143(1)(a) of the Act. The CPC also given information to the assessee before making any adjustments. He further submitted that as per Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta cited supra, compliance of section 80AC is a mandatory provision for claiming deduction under section 80P of the Act but in the impugned case, the assessee did not file his return of income within the due date as specified under section 139(1) of the Act. 6.2. He further submitted that as per sub-clause (ii) of sec. 143(1)(a) and Explanation (a) to sec.143(1)(a) , the term incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return is defined as under section (i) an item, which is inconsistent with another entry of the same or some other item in such return. In the present case, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80P under chapter VI-A which is an item in the return filed and assessee has also filled up the columns” due date for filling return” and “ date of filling return”. As could be seen from date of filing return as prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act and in such circumstances, the assessee is not eligible to claim deduction u/s 80P of the Act in accordance with provisions of sec. 80AC of the Act. Thus, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80P of the Act, which is one item and same is ITA No.1043/Bang/2022 Page 8 of 18 inconsistent with actual date of filing of return which is entry of some other item in the return and thus actually matches with Explanation – (a)(i) to sec. 143(1)(a) of the Aact. Thus, CPC has been correctly applying said provisions of sec. 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act while disallowing deduction u/s 80P of the Act, where return is filed after the specified due date. He further submitted that the amendment made later as submitted by the assessee will effect because there was clear provision in section 80AC of the Act. 6.3 The ld. Dr. also relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Wipro Ltd. vs Pr. CIT in which it has been held as under:- Section 10B, read with section 72, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Export oriented undertaking (Submission of declaration) - Assessment year 2001- 02 - Assessee, a 100 per cent EOU, filed its original return under section 139(1) on due date declaring loss and claiming exemption under section 10B - Thereafter, assessee filed a declaration with Assessing Officer on 24- 10-2002, stating that it did not want to avail benefits of section 10B - Consequently, assessee filed revised return on 23-12-2002 wherein it claimed carry forward of losses - Assessing Officer denied said claim of carrying forward of losses under section 72 - High Court held that requirement of submission of declaration under section 10B(8) was mandatory in nature, but time limit within which declaration was to be filed was directory in nature - Supreme Court set aside order of High Court by holding that for claiming benefit under section 10B, both conditions of furnishing declaration to Assessing Officer in writing and to file same before due date of filing original return of income under section 139(1), are mandatory in nature, thus, assessee would not be entitled to benefit under section 10B(8) on non-compliance of twin conditions as provided under section 10B(8) - Whether there was no error apparent from record which would warrant reconsideration of said order, thus, review petition was to be dismissed - Held, yes [Para 2] [In favour of revenue] ITA No.1043/Bang/2022 Page 9 of 18 7. After hearing the rival contentions, we note that the assessee is a Co- operative Society, declaring income of is Rs.5,09,329/- and the assessee claimed deduction under section 80P of the Act on the entire income during the year but the CPC did not allow the deduction u/s 80P of the Act by observing that it has not filed return of income within the due date as per section 139(1) of the Act. On appeal before the CIT(A), he also dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as noted “supra”. On going through the section 80AC(ii) of the Act, it has been observed that for getting deduction under Chapter VI-A, the assessee was required to file return of income as per section 139(1) of the Act, to which, the assessee could not comply. Similar issue has been decided by the Co- ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of judgment cited by the learned DR in the case of M/s. Syndicate Bank Staff Co-operative Society Ltd., (supra). Relevant part is as under: “7. On going through the above inserted clause (ii) in section 80AC of the Act, the assessee has to comply the section 80AC of the Act, if it wants to claim deduction under Chapter VIA under the heading “C-Deductions in respect of certain incomes”. The assessee has claimed deduction U/s 80P(2)(a)(i) on profits earned during the year and filed return of income on 31.12.2018, which is beyond the due date as prescribed as per section 139(1) of the Act, accordingly the assessee is not complying with the condition which are prescribed by section 80AC(ii) of the Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the recent decision , settled the law in case of an exemption / deduction clause in a tax statute in the case of Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax reported in [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC) in which it has been held as under:- 48. One of the rules of interpretation of a tax statute is that if a deduction or exemption is available on compliance with ITA No.1043/Bang/2022 Page 10 of 18 certain conditions, the conditions are to be strictly complied with Eagle Flask Industries Ltd. v. CCE 2004 taxmann.com 350 (SC)/2004 Supp. (4) SCR 35. This rule is in line with the general principle that taxing statutes are to be construed strictly, and that there is no room for equitable considerations. 49. That deductions are to be granted only when the conditions which govern them are strictly complied with. This has been laid down in State of Jharkhand v. Ambay Cement 2005 taxmann.com 1352 (SC)/[2005] 1 SCC 368 as follows: "23.... In our view, the provisions of exemption clause should be strictly construed and if the condition under which the exemption was granted stood changed on account of any subsequent event the exemption would not operate. 24. In our view, an exception or an exempting provision in a taxing statute should be construed strictly and it is not open to the court to ignore the conditions prescribed in the industrial policy and the exemption notifications. 25. In our view, the failure to comply with the requirements renders the writ petition filed by the respondent liable to be dismissed. While mandatory rule must be strictly observed, substantial compliance might suffice in the case of a directory rule. 26. Whenever the statute prescribes that a particular act is to be done in a particular manner and also lays down that failure to comply with the said requirement leads to severe consequences, such requirement would be mandatory. It is the cardinal rule of interpretation that where a statute provides that a particular thing should be done, it should be done in the manner prescribed and not in any other way. It is also settled rule of interpretation that where a statute is penal in character, it must be strictly construed and followed. Since the requirement, in the instant case, of obtaining prior permission is mandatory, therefore, non-compliance with the same must result in cancelling the concession made in favour of the grantee, the respondent herein." This was also reaffirmed in a number of judgments, such as CIT v. Ace Multi Axes Systems Ltd. [2017] 88 taxmann.com 69/[2018] 252 Taxman 274/400 ITR 141 (SC)/[2018] 2 SCC 158. 50. The Constitution Bench, in Commissioner of Customs v. Dilip Kumar & Co. [2018] 95 ITA No.1043/Bang/2022 Page 11 of 18 taxmann.com 327/69 GST 239 (SC)/[2018] 9 SCC 1 endorsed as following: "24. In construing penal statutes and taxation statutes, the Court has to apply strict rule of interpretation. The penal statute which tends to deprive a person of right to life and liberty has to be given strict interpretation or else many innocents might become victims of discretionary decision-making. Insofar as taxation statutes are concerned, Article 265 of the Constitution [ "265. Taxes not to be imposed save by authority of law.—No tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law."] prohibits the State from extracting tax from the citizens without authority of law. It is axiomatic that taxation statute has to be interpreted strictly because the State cannot at their whims and fancies burden the citizens without authority of law. In other words, when the competent legislature mandates taxing certain persons/certain objects in certain circumstances, it cannot be expanded/interpreted to include those, which were not intended by the legislature. ** ** ** 34. The passages extracted above, were quoted with approval by this Court in at least two decisions being CIT v. Kasturi & Sons Ltd. [CIT v. Kasturi & Sons Ltd., (1999) 3 SCC 346] and State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd. [State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd., (2004) 10 SCC 201] (hereinafter referred to as "Kesoram Industries case [State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd., (2004) 10 SCC 201]", for brevity). In the later decision, a Bench of five Judges, after citing the above passage from Justice G.P. Singh's treatise, summed up the following principles applicable to the interpretation of a taxing statute: '(i) In interpreting a taxing statute, equitable considerations are entirely out of place. A taxing statute cannot be interpreted on any presumption or assumption. A taxing statute has to be interpreted in the light of what is clearly expressed; it cannot imply anything which is not expressed; it cannot import provisions in the statute so as to supply any deficiency; (ii) Before taxing any person, it must be shown that he falls within the ambit of the charging section by clear words used in the section; and (iii) If the words are ambiguous and open to two interpretations, the benefit of ITA No.1043/Bang/2022 Page 12 of 18 interpretation is given to the subject and there is nothing unjust in a taxpayer escaping if the letter of the law fails to catch him on account of the legislature's failure to express itself clearly.'" The above judgment was rendered in respect of disallowance of employees’ contribution to P.F. & ESI for not complying as per the provisions of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) and 43B of the I.T.Act, but the ratio decided in regard to interpretation of exemption & deduction compliance provisions will apply in this case also.” 7.1 From the above cited decision it is clear that the prima facie adjustments can be made while processing the return of income if there were an incorrect claim and if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return. The provision of section 80AC of the Act has to be complied strictly. 7.2. The learned DR also relied on the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Suolificio Linea Italia (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-8 Kol reported in 2018] 93 taxmann.com 462 (Calcutta), in which it has been held a under:- 10. The ratio is utterly inapplicable when the statute confers a benefit and imposes a condition for the enjoyment of the benefit. The dictum would not be applicable, particularly, since the embargo is couched in negative words. Had it been a case where the express prohibition as in the words quoted from Section 80AC were not there, an arguable case could have been made out. However, when the governing provision expressly mandates that no such deductions shall be allowed unless the assessee filed his returns of income "on or before the due dates specified under" Section 139 (1) of the Act, there is no question of referring to the extended period permitted under Section 139(4) of the Act to seek the benefit. Indeed, if the embargo were not as strict as is evident from the relevant provision, the entirety of Section 139 would ITA No.1043/Bang/2022 Page 13 of 18 have been mentioned in the relevant expression in Section 80AC of the Act which would have included within its sweep the extended period under sub- section (4) thereof. But in such provision referring only to sub-section (1) of Section 139 of the Act, the reference to the other provisions of Section 139 must be understood to have been excluded. 11. Since the legal issue raised by the appellant is directly covered in the judgment of Shelcon Properties P. Ltd. (supra) and the view expressed therein does not require to be revisited notwithstanding the aberration in the case of S.R. Batliboi Associates (supra), the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. ITAT No.385 of 2016 and GA No.690 of 2018 stand dismissed 7.3 In the above decision, the appellant raised a legal question upon claim for the benefit conferred under Section 80-IB of the Act being declined on the ground that the appellant did not file its return for the relevant assessment year within the period prescribed under Section 139 (1) of the Act and the deduction was denied for not following the mandatory requirement of section 80AC of the Act. In the case on hand, the assessee was required to file return within the due date i.e. on 31.08.2018 but he filed return belatedly and following the judgment, the assessee is not eligible to claim of deduction u/s 80P of the Act. Accordingly, the adjustment made by the CPC while processing the return is correct. 7.4 During the course of hearing, the ld. DR has relied on the judgment of co-ordinate bench in ITA No. 1062/Bang/2022 cited supra, in which the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court has been considered in the case of AA520 Veerappampalayam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax reported in (2022) 138 taxmann.com 571 (Madras). The relevant part is as under:- ITA No.1043/Bang/2022 Page 14 of 18 “6. Section 143 (1) (a) of the Act reads thus:— '143.( ) Where a return has been made under section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142, such return shall be processed in the following manner, namely:— (a) the total income or loss shall be computed after making the following adjustments, namely:— (i) any arithmetical error in the return; (ii) an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return; (iii) disallowance of loss claimed, if return of the previous year for which set off of loss is claimed was furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; (iv) disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return; (v) disallowance of deduction claimed under sections 10AA, 80- IA, 80-IAB, 80-IB, 80-IC, 80-IDorsection 80-1E, if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; or (vi) addition of income appearing in Form 26AS or Form 16A or Form 16 which has not been included in computing the total income in the return: Provided that no such adjustments shall be made unless an intimation is given to the assessee of such adjustments either in writing or in electronic mode: Provided further that the response received from the assessee, if any, shall be considered before making any adjustment, and in a case where no response is received within thirty days of the issue of such intimation, such adjustments shall be made:' 7. The scope of an 'intimation' under section 143(1)(a) of the Act, extends to the making of adjustments based upon errors apparent from the return of income and patent from the record. Thus to say that the scope of 'incorrect claim' should be circumscribed and restricted by the Explanation which employs the term 'entry' would, in my view, not be correct and the provision must be given full and unfettered play. The explanation cannot curtail or restrict the main thrust or scope of the provision and due weightage as well as meaning has to be attributed to the purposes of section 143(1)(a) of the Act. ITA No.1043/Bang/2022 Page 15 of 18 8. The provisions of section 80AC(ii) make it clear that any deduction that is claimed under Part C of Chapter VIA would be admissible only if the return of income in that case were filed within the prescribed due date. Thus no claim under any of the provisions of Part C of Chapter VIA would be admissible in the case of a belated return. There is no dispute on this position. The date of filing of a return of income would be apparent on the face of return and upon a perusal thereof, it would be clear as to whether the return is a valid return, having been filed within the statutory time limit, or a belated one. This is mechanical exercise and one that can be carried out by the CPC, very much within the scope of section 143(1 )(a)(ii) of the Act.” 7.5 Considering the above judgments of Hon’ble High Courts noted supra, the CPC has rightly not accepted the deduction claimed u/s 80P of the Act. The reference made by the ld. AR for amendments made in section 143(1)(a) by the Finance Act 2020 & 2021 will not comply. The ld. AR of the assessee has relied the judgments of co- ordinate bench of Tribunals and in any of the judgments, the judgment of Hon’ble Kolkata High Court has not been considered in regard to mandatory requirement for filling return of income within due date, therefore, these judgments are not applicable in the present case on hand. 8. The learned AR relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vegetable Products and submitted that if there are 2 conflicting judgments, the favourable judgment should be adopted. Since the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court has decided the issue in favour of the Revenue in respect of section 80AC of the Act for compliance by the assessee for filing return of income within due date and the adjustment can be made as per section 143(1)(a) of the Act has been decided by the Hon’ble Madras High Court cited supra. The decision cited by the ITA No.1043/Bang/2022 Page 16 of 18 learned AR is of ITAT Bench, whereas the Hon’ble High Courts have settled both the issues. Therefore, respectfully following the judgment of Hon’ble High Courts cited supra, the judgment of Vegetable Products will not apply in assessee’s favour. 9. Respectfully following the above judgments of Honb’le High Courts cited supra, I dismiss the appeal of the assessee. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in court on 27 th day of January, 2023 Sd/- (GEORGE GEORGE K) Sd/- (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) Judicial Member Accountant Member Bangalore, Dated : 27.01.2023. /NS/Vms ITA No.1043/Bang/2022 Page 17 of 18 Copyto: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore. ITA No.1043/Bang/2022 Page 18 of 18 1. Date of Dictation .......................................... 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the dictating Member ......................... 3. Date on which the approved draft comes to Sr.P.S ................................... 4. Date on which the fair order is placed before the dictating Member .................... 5. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr. P.S. ....................... 6. Date of uploading the order on website................................... 7. If not uploaded, furnish the reason for doing so ................................ 8. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk ....................... 9. Date on which order goes for Xerox & endorsement.......................................... 10. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk ......................... 11. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order ..................................... 12. The date on which the file goes to dispatch section for dispatch of the Tribunal Order ............................... 13. Date of Despatch of Order. .....................................................