Subhagya Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Ahmedabad V. The DCIT, CPC Bangalore present jurisdiction The ITO, Ward-5(2)(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 858/AHD/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9259 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-01-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 27-12-2023
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 25-10-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRIS.N.DIVATIA; DENYINGTHELEGITIMATEBENEFITTOTHEASSESSEE

Judgement Text

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण,अहमदाबादनयायपीी INTHEINCOMETAXAPPELLATETRIBUNAL, ‘’SMC’’BENCH,AHMEDABAD BEFORESHRIWASEEMAHMED,ACCOUNTANTMEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITANo.858/AHD/2023 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt.Year:2018-2019 SubhagyaCo-operativeHousing SocietyLimited, B-701SafalPegasus, NearAudaGarden, Prahladnagar, Ahmedabad-380015. PAN:AACAS0740E Vs. D.C.I.T, CPCBangalore Present IncomeTaxOfficer, Ward-5(2)(4), Ahmedabad. (Applicant)(Respondent) Assesseeby:ShriS.N.Divatia,A.R Revenueby:Ms.SaumyaPandeyJain,Sr.DR सुिवाईकीतारीख /DateofHearing:28/12/2023 घोरणाकीतारीख/DateofPronouncement:05/01/2024 आदेश/ORDER PERWASEEMAHMED,ACCOUNTANTMEMBER: ThecaptionedappealhasbeenfiledattheinstanceoftheAssesseeagainst theorderoftheLearnedCommissionerofIncomeTax(Appeals),Ahmedabad, arisinginthematterofrectificationorderpassedunders.154oftheIncomeTax Act,1961(here-in-afterreferredtoas"theAct")relevanttotheAssessmentYear 2018-2019. 2.TheonlyissueraisedbytheasseseeisthattheLd.CIT(A)deniedtheclaim madeu/s80PoftheActamountingtoRs.4,74,831/-only. ITAno.858/AHD/2023 Asstt.Year2018-2019 2 3.Thenecessaryfactsarethattheassesseeinthepresentcaseisaco- operativehousingsocietyandclaimeddeductionu/s80PoftheActofRs. 4,74,831/-inthereturnfileu/s139oftheAct.However,thedeductionclaimedby theassesseewasdeniedintheintimationgeneratedu/s143(1)oftheAct,onthe reasoningthattherelevantcolumnsinthereturnofincometaxwerenotproperly filedup.Theassesseeagainstsuchdenialofitsclaimfiledrectificationapplication u/s154oftheActwhichwasalsodeniedintheorderpassedu/s154oftheAct byobservingasunder: Asseenfromthee-filedreturnofincomeandrectificationfiledbyyou,itisfoundthatyou havenotcorrectlyfilledSch.VIAforclaimingthedeductionu/s.80P.Thesystemhas computedtheallowabledeductionunderchapterviafromthedetailsentered.Theother reasonfornon-allowanceofdeductionu/s.80Pis,thesameisnotallowableforstatus otherthancooperativesociety.Further,thesaiddeductionisallowableonlyonthebalance incomefrombusinessavailableaftersetoffonthecurrentyearandbroughtforward losses. Theassesseeshouldthenticktheappropriateboxtherein,forselectingtherectification reasonandthenuploadtherectificationXML-itissuggestedthatAssesseemayuse DepartmentUtilityforfilingcorrectXML. 4.TheaggrievedassesseepreferredanappealtotheLd.CIT(A).The assesseebeforetheLd.CIT(A)submittedthatithasearnedinterestamountingto Rs.4,61,012/-onthedepositsmadewiththeco-operativesocietywhichisliable fordeductionu/s80P(2)(d)oftheAct.Likewise,thebalanceamountofRs. 13,819/-wasclaimeddeductionunderresiduaryprovisioni.e.80P(2)(c)(ii)ofthe Act.Theasseseeinsupportofitsclaimhasalsoreferredtothejudgmentsof Hon’bleJurisdictionalHighCourtaswellasorderoftheAhmedabad,Tribunal. 5.However,Ld.CIT(A)rejectedtheclaimoftheassesseeonthereasoning thattheassesseehasnotfileduptheIncome-taxreturnproperlysoastoclaim thedeductionu/s80PoftheAct.AspertheLd.CIT(A),thereisanincorrectclaim ofdeductionu/s80P(2)(d)oftheActonthepartoftheassessee.Thus,Ld. CIT(A),upheldtheorderoftheAO. 6.BeingaggrievedbytheorderofLd.CIT(A),theassesseeisinappealbefore us. ITAno.858/AHD/2023 Asstt.Year2018-2019 3 7.TheLd.ARbeforeusfileditsreturnofincomeanddrawnourattentionon thecomputationofincomedemonstratingthatthedeductionwasclaimedu/s 80P(2)(d)/2(c)oftheAct.AspertheLd.AR,thedeductioncannotbedenied merelyonthereasoningthattherelevantcolumnsintheincometaxreturnwere notfilledupproperly. 8.Ontheotherhand,theLd.DRsubmittedthatthescopeunderthe provisionofsection154oftheActislimitedtotheextentofapparentmistake.In thepresentcase,theassesseehasnotmadeaclaimproperlyintheIncome-tax returnandthereforethesamewasdeniedintheintimationgeneratedu/s143(1) oftheAct.Assuch,therewasnomistakeapparentontherecordwhichcouldbe rectifiedundersection154oftheAct.TheLd.DRvehementlysupportedtheorder oftheauthoritiesbelow. 9.Wehaveheardtherivalcontentionsofboththepartiesandperusedthe materialsavailableonrecord.Thefirstcontroversyarisesbeforeuswhetherthe assesseehasclaimedthedeductionu/s80PoftheAct,inthereturnfiledbyit electronically.Tothiseffect,wenotethattheLd.ARhasnotbroughtanythingon recordtojustifywhetherthepropercolumnsintheincome-taxreturnwerefilled upproperlyornot. 9.1Bethat,asitmaybe,theassesseeinthecomputationofincomehasduly shownthedeductionclaimedbyitu/s80P(2)(d)/80P(2)(c)oftheAct,whichis availableonrecord.Besides,theassesseehasalsocontendedbeforeLd.CIT(A) thatthedeductionisavailabletotheassesseeontheamountofinterestincome discussedabovebyvirtueofthejudgment/orderofHon’bleGujaratHighCourt andITATAhmedabad.Therelevantsubmissionoftheassesseeisreproducedas under: ThusitisclearthatthedeductionisavailabletoAppellant.Inthisconnectionthereisa directdecisionofHonourableGujaratHighCourt(JurisdictionalHighCourt)inthecaseof CITIIvs.SabarkanthaDistrictCooperativeMilkProducersUnionLtdTaxAppealNo. ITAno.858/AHD/2023 Asstt.Year2018-2019 4 473/2014Dated16.6.2014(CopyattachedAnnexure5).Furtherinrecentjudgementby HonurableITAT(Ahmedabad)onthesamefactsinthecaseofSuramyaAdobeCo- operativeHousingServicesSocietyLimitedallowedtheclaimoftheAppellant.Copyofthe orderattached.(Annexure6).FurtherHonourableCIT(A)-3Ahd.onthesamefactsinthe caseofAltius-2Co.Op.HousingServiceSocietyLimitedallowedclaimoftheAppellant. Copyoftheorderattached.(Annexure7). 9.2TheabovesubmissionhasnowherebeendoubtedbytheLd.CIT(A).As such,theLd.CIT(A)hasdeniedthebenefittotheassesseemerelypointingout thedefectintheincome-taxreturn. 9.3Itisthesettledpositionoflawthattheincomehastobecomputedbythe assesseeaspertheprovisionofAct.Toourunderstanding,ifthereisanymistake onthepartoftheassesseeforclaimingthelegitimatededuction,itistheonus upontherevenuetorectifythesame.Assuchtherevenuecannottaketheshelter oftheignoranceoftheassesseebydenyingthelegitimatebenefittotheassessee. TheHon’bleGujaratHighCourtinthecaseofEsarCostevsCITreportedin276 ITR165hasheldasunder: 18.Thepositionis,therefore,that,regardlessofwhethertherevisedreturnwasfiledor not,onceanassesseeisinapositiontoshowthattheassesseehasbeenover-assessed undertheprovisionsoftheAct,regardlessofwhethertheover-assessmentisasaresultof assessee’sownmistakeorotherwise,theCIThasthepowertocorrectsuchan assessmentundersection264(1)oftheAct.IftheCITrefusestogiverelieftothe assessee,insuchcircumstances,hewouldbeactingdehorsthepowersundertheActand theprovisionsoftheActand,thereforeisduty-boundtogiverelieftoanassessee,where due,inaccordancewiththeprovisionsoftheAct. 9.4Inviewoftheabove,weareoftheopinionthattheLd.CIT(A),wasbound tofollowtheverdictoftheHon’bleJurisdictionalHighCourt.Intheeventofnon- complianceofHon’bleJurisdictionalHighCourt,itamountstoamistakeapparent fromtherecordandthereforethesamecanberectifiedu/s154oftheAct. 9.5Beforeparting,itisequallyimportanttonotethatthenoneofthe authoritiesbelowhasgonetoverifythegenuinenessoftheclaimoftheassessee whetheritwaswithintheprovisionoflaw.Thus,forthelimitedpurpose,weare delegatingtheissuetothefileoftheAOforfreshadjudicationtotheextentto findoutwhethertheinterestindisputehasbeenearnedfromtheco-operative ITAno.858/AHD/2023 Asstt.Year2018-2019 5 societyandfromothersources.Assuch,theAOshallverifythedeductionclaimed bytheassesseewithintheprovisionsofsection80P(d)/80P2(c)(ii)oftheAct. Hence,thegroundofappealoftheassesseeisallowedforthestatisticalpurposes. 10.Intheresult,theappealfiledbytheassesseeisallowedforthestatistical purposes. OrderpronouncedintheCourton05/01/2024atAhmedabad. Sd/-Sd/-/-/- (TRSENTHILKUMAR)(WASEEMAHMED) JUDICIALMEMBERACCOUNTANTMEMBER (TrueCopy) Ahmedabad;Dated05/01/2024 Manish