2025 (7) TMI 869 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction u/s.80P - claim of deduction u/s.80P denied for the reason that assessee did not file the return of income - HELD THAT - The said issue is no longer res integra. The Hon ble Kerala High Court in the case of Nileshwar Range Kallu Chethu Vyavasaya Thozhilali Sahakarana Sangham 2023 (3) TMI 1055 - KERALA HIGH COURT had categorically held that for claiming deduction u/s.80P of the Act the assessee necessarily has to file the return of income within the due date prescribed u/s.139(1) of the Act. In the light of the above judgment of the Hon ble Kerala High Court we hold that the assessee is not entitled for deduction u/s.80P of the Act - Decided against assessee.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this appeal are:

• Whether the delay of 371 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal can be condoned on grounds of sufficient cause.
• Whether the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under Section 80P of the Income-tax Act, 1961, despite the return of income not being filed within the due date prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Act.
• Whether the amendment to Section 80A(5) of the Act, which mandates that deductions must be claimed in the return of income, applies retrospectively to the assessment year 2017-18 or only from assessment year 2018-19 onwards.
• Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in computing the business income of the appellant by overlooking statutory provisions and reserves applicable to co-operative societies.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Delay in Filing the Appeal

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, appeals to the Tribunal must be filed within a prescribed time limit. However, the Tribunal has discretion to condone delay if sufficient cause is shown. The principles governing condonation of delay require that the delay be neither deliberate nor due to negligence, and sufficient cause must be demonstrated.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined the affidavit submitted by the assessee, which explained that the delay was caused due to the illness and subsequent death of the Chartered Accountant handling the case. The illness led to a transition of responsibilities and inadvertent oversight. The Tribunal found these reasons to constitute sufficient cause, noting the absence of any laches or intentional delay on the part of the assessee.

Key evidence and findings: The affidavit of the Secretary of the assessee co-operative bank detailed the sequence of events, including the CA's hospitalization for 103 days and eventual demise, and the subsequent resumption of work by his brother leading to the filing of the appeal.

Application of law to facts: Applying the principles of condonation of delay, the Tribunal held that the delay was due to unavoidable and unforeseen circumstances, thus justifying condonation.

Treatment of competing arguments: No contrary submissions were found sufficient to rebut the explanation provided.

Conclusion: The delay of 371 days in filing the appeal was condoned.

Claim of Deduction under Section 80P of the Income-tax Act

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 80P of the Income-tax Act provides deduction in respect of income of co-operative societies engaged in certain specified activities. However, the proviso introduced by the Finance Act, 2018 (effective from assessment year 2018-19) under Section 80A(5) mandates that such deductions must be claimed in the return of income filed within the due date prescribed under Section 139(1). The key precedent relied upon is the judgment of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in Nileshwar Range Kallu Chethu Vyavasaya Thozhilali Sahakarana Sangham v. CIT (2023), which held that filing the return within the due date is a mandatory condition for claiming deduction under Section 80P.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not file the return of income within the due date prescribed under Section 139(1) for the assessment year 2017-18. The Tribunal observed that the amendment to Section 80A(5) applies only from assessment year 2018-19 onwards and is not retrospective. However, the Kerala High Court judgment clarified that even for assessment years prior to 2018-19, the filing of return within the due date is a mandatory condition for claiming deduction under Section 80P. The Tribunal followed this binding precedent and held that the assessee is not entitled to claim deduction under Section 80P for assessment year 2017-18 due to non-filing of return within the prescribed time.

Key evidence and findings: The material on record established that the return was not filed within the due date under Section 139(1) for the relevant assessment year.

Application of law to facts: Applying the legal principle established by the Kerala High Court, the Tribunal found that the denial of deduction under Section 80P was justified.

Treatment of competing arguments: The assessee argued that the amendment to Section 80A(5) was not applicable for assessment year 2017-18. The Tribunal acknowledged this but relied on the Kerala High Court ruling which held that timely filing of return is a mandatory condition even before the amendment. The Tribunal also noted that the learned Authorised Representative fairly conceded this position.

Conclusion: The claim of deduction under Section 80P was rightly denied due to non-filing of return within the due date.

Computation of Business Income and Statutory Reserves

Relevant legal framework: Income computation for co-operative societies involves adherence to statutory provisions and allowances for certain reserves and provisions as per the Income-tax Act and related statutes.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The assessee contended that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in computing business income by ignoring statutory reserves and provisions applicable to co-operative societies. However, the Tribunal did not dwell extensively on this ground, as the primary issue of deduction under Section 80P was dispositive.

Key evidence and findings: No detailed analysis was recorded in the judgment on this issue, indicating that it was not determinative.

Application of law to facts: Since the appeal was dismissed on the ground of denial of deduction under Section 80P due to non-filing of return within the due date, the Tribunal did not find it necessary to adjudicate this issue in detail.

Treatment of competing arguments: The argument was noted but not accepted as a ground for allowing the appeal.

Conclusion: No relief was granted on this issue.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"The Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Nileshwar Range Kallu Chethu Vyavasaya Thozhilali Sahakarana Sangham (supra) had categorically held that for claiming deduction u/s.80P of the Act, the assessee necessarily has to file the return of income within the due date prescribed u/s.139(1) of the Act."

"We are satisfied that there is sufficient cause for belated filing of this appeal and no latches can be attributed to the assessee. Hence, we condone the delay of 371 days in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose of the same on merits."

Core principles established include:

• Delay in filing appeal can be condoned if sufficient cause is shown, including unforeseen and unavoidable circumstances such as illness and death of the professional handling the case.