Indur Intideepam MACS Federation Limited, Nizamabad V. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nizamabad

ITA 759/Hyd/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5769 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Next Hearing Date: 17-09-2020
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 25-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M NARMADA
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMA RAO
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 10AA; 10B; 80P; 139(1); 139(4); 148; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) ITA NO. 758 & 759 /HYD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006 - 07 & 2008 - 09 INDUR INTIDEEPAM MACS FEDERATION LIMITED, NIZAMABAD. PAN: AAAJI 0253 P VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, NIZAMABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI S. RAMA RAO REVENUE BY: SMT. M. NARMADA, DR DATE OF HEARING: 17/09/2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 2 8 /09/2020 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.: TH ESE APPEAL S ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER S OF THE LD. CIT (A) - 5, HYDERABAD IN APPEAL NO S .0229 & 0229A /2016 - 17/CIT(A) - 5, DATED 24/01/2018 AND 31/1/2018 PASSED U/S. 154 R.W.S 250(6) OF THE ACT FOR THE AY 2006 - 07 AND 2008 - 09 RESPECTIVELY. 2 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FIVE IDENTICAL GROUNDS IN ITS BOTH APPEAL S FOR THE AYS 2006 - 07 AND 2008 - 09 AND THEY ARE EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW FOR REF ERENCE: - 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) IS ERRONEOUS BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 2. THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE IS ANY MISTAKE IN THE ORDER U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 147 WHICH CAN BE RECTIFIED U/S. 154 OF THE IT ACT. 3. THE LD CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING TH E DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 4,01,397/ - (FOR AY 2006 - 07) AND RS. 45,27,416/ - (FOR AY 2008 - 09) MADE BY THE AO WHILE PASSING THE ORDER U/S. 154 OF THE ACT. 4. THE LD. CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80P IS ALLOWABLE AND IS CORRECTLY A LLOWED WHILE PASSING THE ORDER U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. 5. ANY OTHER GROUND OR GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY PROVIDING SMALL SCALE LOANS TO POOR AND MARGINAL FARMERS. SINCE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY 200 6 - 07 AND 2008 - 09 NOTICES WERE ISSUED U/S. 148 OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE FILE ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR BOTH THE AYS AND BOTH THE ASSESSMENT S W ERE COMPLETED B Y THE LD. AO U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 147 OF THE ACT ON 25/03/2013 WHEREIN THE LD. AO ASSESSED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO GRANTED DEDUCTION U/S. 80P OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE LD. AO ON VERIFYING THE RECORDS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED T O CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S. 80P OF THE ACT BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT AYS WITHIN THE 3 DUE DATE SPECIFIED U/S. 139(1) OF THE ACT R.W. EXPLANATION - 2. HENCE, THE LD. AO INVOKED HIS POWERS U/S. 154 OF THE ACT AND C OMPUTED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR BOTH THE RELEVANT AYS BY WITHDRAWING THE DEDUCTION GRANTED U/S. 80P OF THE ACT AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. WHEN THE MATTER CROPPED UP BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A), THE LD. CIT (A) AGREED WITH THE VIEW OF THE LD. AO FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: - (I) THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT PROVIDED U/S. 139(1) OR 139(4) OF THE ACT OR WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT SPECIFIED IN THE NOTICE U/S. 142(1) OF THE ACT. (II) PENAL SECTION 276CC OF THE ACT WILL BE ATTRACTED FOR NON - FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME. (III) SECTION 80A(5) PROVIDES THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO MAKE A CLAIM IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR ANY DEDUCTION U/S. 10A OR SECTION 10AA OR SECTION 10B OR SECTION 10BA OR UNDER ANY PROVISION OF THIS CHAPTER U NDER THE HEADING C - DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN INCOME, NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED TO HIM THEREUNDER. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US FOR BOTH THE AYS RAISING FIVE IDENTICAL GROUNDS. HOWEVER, T HE CRUX OF THE ISSUE IS THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAD ERRONEOUSLY CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LD. AO WHO HAD UNDULY WITHDRAWN THE 4 DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S. 80P OF THE ACT INVOKING HIS POWERS U/S. 154 OF THE ACT. 5 . THE LD. AR VEHEMENTLY ARGUED BEFORE US BY STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR BOTH THE AYS IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 148 OF THE ACT WHEREIN IT HAD CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80P OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR FURTHER ARGUED BY STAT ING THAT THERE WAS NO PROVISION IN THE ACT WHICH BARS THE ASSESSEE FROM CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S. 80P OF THE ACT FOR NOT FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME WITHIN THE DUE DATE PROVIDED U/S. 1391(1) AND 139(4) OF THE ACT. THE LD. DR THOUGH VEHEMENTLY ARGUED IN SUPP ORT OF THE ORDERS OF THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES COULD NOT SUCCESSFULLY CONTROVERT TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR. 6 . AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES, WE FIND MERIT IN THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. AR. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR BOTH THE RELEVANT AYS PURSUANT TO THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 148 OF THE ACT CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S. 80P OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPLIED WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80A(5) OF THE ACT. SECTION 80A(5) ONLY STIPULATES THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD CLAIM THE DEDUCTION IN THE RETURN OF INCOME WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD COMPLIED WHILE RESPONDING TO NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 148 OF THE ACT . FURTHER SECTION 80A(5) DOES NOT STIPULATE THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME SHOULD BE FILED WITHIN THE DUE DATE PRESCRIBED U/S.139(1) & (4) OF THE ACT. MOREOVER WE DO NOT FIND ANY OTHER 5 PROVISIONS OF THE ACT WHICH BARS THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80P OF THE ACT IF THE RETURN OF INCOME IS NOT FILED WITHIN THE DUE DATE AS PROVIDED U/S. 139(1) & (4) OF THE ACT. THE LD. DR ALSO COULD NOT SUCCESSFULLY CONTROVERT TO THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AR. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. AO INVOKING HIS POWERS U/S. 154 OF THE ACT, WITHDRAWING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80P OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR BOTH THE AYS. SINCE THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ALSO AGREED WITH THE SAME VIEW OF THE LD. AO, HIS ORDERS ARE ALSO DEVOID OF MERITS. FOR THE AFORESTATED REASONS, W E HEREBY SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT (A) AND DIRECT THE LD. AO TO GRANT DEDUCTION U/S. 80P OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE FOR BOTH THE AYS. ACCORDINGLY, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE HELD IN ITS FAVOUR. 7 . IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF TH E ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH SEPTEMBER, 2020. SD/ - SD/ - (P. MADHAVI DEVI) ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 28 TH SEPTEMBER, 2020. OKK COPY TO: - 6 1. INDUR INTIDEEPAM MACS FEDERATION LIMITED, H.NO.5 - 67, DHARAMARAM (B) DICHPALLY, NIZAMABAD. 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, SUBASH NAGAR, NIZAMABAD. 3. THE CIT (A) - 5, HYDERABAD. 4. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 5, HYDERABAD. 5. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ITAT, HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE.