Dindoshi Onkar Co-operative Housing Society Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
Assessee, a co-operative housing society, claimed deduction of ₹50,000 u/s 80P(2)(c) & ₹1,99,792 u/s 80P(2)(d). CPC, while processing return u/s 143(1), disallowed the deduction merely because the return was filed belatedly. CIT(A), Panaji upheld this disallowance.
Before the Tribunal, the Assessee argued that no adjustment for disallowance of 80P deduction could be made while processing u/s 143(1), since such power existed only from A.Y. 2021–22 onward after amendment.
ITAT relied on its earlier decision in New Shangrilla Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. (ITA Nos. 755 & 756/Mum/2024), holding that for pre–2021 years, CPC had no authority to deny 80P deduction u/s 143(1).
Held: Adjustment u/s 143(1) disallowing 80P deduction for A.Y. 2013–14 is invalid. Addition of ₹2,21,247 deleted; appeal allowed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
1. The present appeal preferred by the Assessee is directed against the order, dated 24/06/2025, passed by the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Panaji [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Intimation Order, dated 03/08/2014, passed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2013-2014.
2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :
“The appellant objects to the order dated 24 June 2025 passed under Section 250 of the Income tax Act by the ADDL/JCIT (A), Panaji [CIT(A)] for the aforesaid assessment year on the following among other grounds:
1. The learned CIT(A) erred in not directing the learned CPC/AO to delete the additional tax demand as the same is not permissible under Section 143(1) of the Income tax Act and such adjustment cannot be made without issuing intimation to the assessee.
2. The learned CIT(A) erred in not directing the CPC/AO to allow deductions of INR 50,000 claimed under Section 80P(2)(c) and INR 1,99,792 under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income tax Act in respect of interest earned on deposits kept with nationalized bank and cooperative banks respectively.
3. The learned CIT(A) erred in directing the CPC/AO to delete the interest charged under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income tax Act.
4. Each one of the above grounds of appeal is without prejudice to the above.”
3. The brief facts of the case are that the Assessee, a co-operative society, filed return of income for the assessment year 2013-2014 on 18/02/2014 declaring total income of INR.2,21,247/- and claimed deduction of INR.50,000/- under Section 80P(2)(c) and INR.1,99,792/- under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The aforesaid return of income was processed and Intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act was issued on 03/08/2014 whereby an adjustment of INR.2,21,247/- was made denying the deduction for the aforesaid amount claimed in the return of income. The appeal preferred by the Assessee challenging the aforesaid addition was admitted by the Learned CIT(A) after condoning the delay. However, no relief was granted to the Assessee as the said appeal was dismissed vide, Order dated 26/04/2025, impugned by way of the present appeal on the Grounds reproduced in paragraph 2 above.
