M/s.Mukkom Urban Co-op society Ltd, Kozhikkode V. ITO, Kozhikkode

ITA 51/COCH/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Mukkom Urban Co-operative Society Limited appealing against the dismissal of its earlier appeal by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), which contested the denial of deduction under section 80P of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The initial denial was based on the application of section 80AC, which restricts deductions not claimed in timely filed returns. The Tribunal examined the maintainability of the Revenue's action under sections 143(1)(a)(ii) and 154, referencing a similar case, Kollad Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Ors. v. ITO, where it was determined that such adjustments were not permissible prior to the specified amendment date of 01/04/2021.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 115412 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 11-09-2023
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 17-01-2023
• Other Referred Cases: Kollad Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Ors. v. ITO
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Application of stay
• Section: 80P

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, AM &Shri Manomohan Das, JM ITA No.51/Coch/2023: Asst.Year:2019-2020 & SA No.58/Coch/2023 Mukkom Urban Co-operative Society Limited, D-3172 Mukkom P.O. Kozhikode – 673 602 [PAN: AAFAM1107L] vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1) Kozhikode. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Sri.Johnson George, CA Respondent by: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 12.09.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 29.09.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the Assessee agitating the dismissal of it’s appeal, vide its order dated 30.12.2022, by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department [CIT(A)], contesting the denial of deduction under section 80P of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for assessment year (AY) 2019-2020 vide rectification order u/s.154 of the Act dated 17.11.2020. 2. The denial of deduction u/s.80P in the instant case has been on account of application of s.80AC of the Act, which, with effect from 01.04.2018, bars the claim of deduction, inter alia, under any provision falling under Chapter VI-A (Part-C), where not made per a return filed within the time specified u/s.139(1). The return in the instant case has been filed on 25.9.2020, i.e., admittedly beyond the extended period of time allowed for filing the original return, i.e., 31.10.2019. The claim u/s.80P, made at Rs.13,23,272, was accordingly disallowed vide Intimation u/s.143(1), raising a demand for Rs.5,71,530. Inasmuch as the said Intimation, where ITA No.51/Coch/2023 & SA No.58/Coch/2023(AY 2019-20) M u k k om U r ba n C o- op S oc ie t y L t d v . I T O 2 determining a sum payable by the assessee, is deemed as a notice of demand, the purport of recourse to s.154, determining the income and the demand in the same sums, i.e., Rs.13,23,270 and Rs.5,71,530 respectively, is not understood. 3. Be that as it may, the issue before us is the maintainability of the Revenue’s action in denying the assessee it’s claim for deduction u/s.80P on processing u/s.143(1)(a), since reiterated u/s. 154, scope of which is pari materia. This Tribunal has, vide a detailed order in Kollad Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Ors. v. ITO (in ITA No. 95/Coch/2023, dated 25.9.2023), found the adjustment u/s.143(1)(a)(ii), which has been applied in the instant case as well, as not maintainable, as indeed u/s. 143(1)(a)(v) where the same is prior to 01.04.2021, i.e., the date on which the corresponding amendment, i.e., with reference to sec.80AC, stands made in sec.143(1)(a)(v). As explained therein, the adjustment is outside the scope of s. 143(1)(a)(ii), while that u/s. 143(1)(a)(v) could not be given effect to prior to 01/4/2021, as obtains in the instant case. 4. No contrary argument stands advanced, or decision relied upon by the Revenue; that cited by it in Kollad SCB Ltd. (supra) found distinguishable. Under the circumstances, we find little merit in the Revenue’s case, and the assessee, accordingly, succeeds. We decide accordingly. As the appeal is disposed of, the assessee’s captioned stay application becomes infructuous. 5. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced on September 29, 2023 under Rule 34 of The Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 Sd/- (Manomohan Das) Sd/- (Sanjay Arora) Judicial Member Accountant Member Cochin; Dated: September 29, 2023 Devadas G* ITA No.51/Coch/2023 & SA No.58/Coch/2023(AY 2019-20) M u k k om U r ba n C o- op S oc ie t y L t d v . I T O 3 Copy to: 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. The Sr. DR, ITAT, Cochin. 5. Guard File. Assistant Registrar ITAT/Cochin