Sahakari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd, Baghauli, Hardoi V. The ITO Range-3(2) Hardoi, Hardoi

ITA 220/LKW/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 102 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0275 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 18-10-2023
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 07-12-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 154; 143(1); 80P; 139(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “SMC”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.220/LKW/2022 Assessment Year 2019-20 The Assistant Director of Income Tax-CPC, Bengaluri 560500 Vs. Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd. Baghauli, C/o Ayyubi Chamber, Raniganj, Hardoi. (U.P.) PAN AADAS 4833K (Respondent) (Appellant) Shri Shubham Rastogi, CA Appellant by Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. CIT(DR) Respondent by 19/10/2023 Date of hearing 31/10/2023 Date of pronouncement O R D E R This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 07.10.2022 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Cooperative Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The assessee filed its return of income declaring total income at Rs.NIL. While processing the return u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’), the Centralized 2 ITA No. 220/Lkw/2022 Processing Centre (CPC), Bengaluru assessed the total income at Rs.46,67,370/- and made an addition of Rs.46,67,370/- on account of disallowance of deduction u/s. 80P of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC. However, the appeal before the NFAC came to be dismissed with the NFAC observing that it was mandatory for the assessee to fill in the necessary details in order to claim the said deduction whereas in the present case the necessary details were not filled in Annexure-Schedule 80P and, therefore, the deduction claimed by the assessee was an incorrect claim and, therefore, the Assessing Officer had rightly made the disallowance. 4. Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the action of the NFAC by raising the following grounds of appeal: “(1) That the Ld. C.I.T. (A), NFAC, erred on facts and in law in not allowing deduction u / s 80P of Chapter VI-A of I.T. Act of Rs. 46,67,369/- merely because 'Annexure- Schedule 80P' of ITR-5 was not filled properly. (2) That the Ld. C.I.T. (A) NFAC has further erred on facts and in law in not considering that the deduction u / s 80P was duly claimed in the Return of Income (ITR - 5) under 'Schedule VI-A' and the return was filed within the time limit prescribed u/s. 139(1) of I. T. Act. 3 ITA No. 220/Lkw/2022 (3) That the Ld. C.I.T. (A) NFAC had failed appreciate that it is not a case of incorrect claim as the amount of deduction claimed was duly filled in the 'Schedule VI – A - 'Part- C' under clause 'm' pertaining to '80P-Income of Co-operative Societies'. (4) The Ld. C.I.T. (A) NFAC had further erred in not considering that no defective notice u/s 139(9) of I.T. Act was issued by the CPC prior to disallowance of deduction in the order u / s 143(1) of I. T. Act. (5) That the present disallowance is highly excessive, contrary to the facts, law and principle of natural justice and without providing sufficient time and opportunity to have its say on the reasons relied upon by him.” 5. At the outset, the ld. Authorized Representative submitted that the present appeal before the Tribunal was filed belatedly and that there was a delay of one day in filing of the appeal. It was submitted that the order of the NFAC had been received by the assessee on 08.10.2022 and the appeal papers were signed on 07.12.2022 but the same could not be filed with the Registry of the ITAT on the same day as the assessee is situated out of Lucknow i.e. in Hardoi and, therefore, it was filed on 08.12.2022. My attention was also drawn to the affidavit filed by the assessee in this regard and it was prayed that the delay be condoned and the appeal be admitted for hearing. 6. Per contra, the ld. Senior Departmental Representative had no objection to the condonation of delay. 4 ITA No. 220/Lkw/2022 7. I have heard both the parties on the issue of condonation of delay and looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and specially noting that the bona fide of the assessee in this regard is beyond doubt, I condone the delay of one day and admit the appeal for the purpose of regular hearing. 8. The ld. A.R. submitted that the observation of the NFAC that the details regarding deduction u/s.80P of the Act were not properly filled up is incorrect. It was submitted that, apparently, there was an error in the schema issued by the Department. My attention was drawn to the printout of HTML file, which has been submitted in the form of paper book and also the printout of the Income Tax Return and it was pointed out that the amount eligible for deduction u/s.80P of the Act is appearing blank whereas in case of other deductions under Chapter VI-A the figures are being reflected as zero. It was submitted that, apparently, there was an error in the software/schema of the Department as the amount did not get reflected in the body of the return although it is appearing in the computation of income. It was submitted that, therefore, the mistake/error was entirely beyond the control of the assessee and it is not the case of the 5 ITA No. 220/Lkw/2022 Department that the assessee had not made the claim. On a query from the Bench, the ld. A.R. also submitted that the assessee had filed application u/s. 154 of the Act with the C.P.C. on 25.11.2021 seeking rectification of the intimation issued u/s.143(1)(a) of the Act but the same was still pending. 9. The ld. Senior D.R. submitted that the issue may be restored to the Assessing Officer to properly verify the claim of the assessee and allow the same if found to be in order/admissible. 10. I have heard both the parties and I have also gone through the records. It is the assessee’s claim that the figure of deduction u/s.80P of the Act, although having being input by the assessee at the time of filing of the return of income, did not appear in one of the prescribed columns in the Income Tax Return whereas, it has appeared in the computation of income generated after the inputs in the return were fed. This claim of the assessee apparently appears to be correct. However, it will be in fitness of things if the issue is re-examined by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, I restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to adjudicate the issue afresh within six 6 ITA No. 220/Lkw/2022 months of the receipt of this order after giving proper opportunity to the assessee to present its case. 11. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open court on 31/10/2023) Sd/- (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Aks – Dtd. 31/10/2023 Copy of order forwarded to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) Commissioner (4) Departmental Representative (5) Guard File By order Assistant Registrar