IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2019-20 Pahalampur Samabay Krishi ITO, Ward-23(1), Hooghly Unnayan Ltd.

C/o S. N. Ghosh & Associates, Vs Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kol – 700001.

(PAN: AAAAP2517N)

(Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Respondent by : Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 28.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 02.09.2025 ORDER Per Bench :

This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] in appeal no.NFAC/2018-19/10008638 dated 07.06.2022.

2. Shri Somnath Ghosh represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue.

3. The appeal has been filed by the assessee with a delay of 967 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay. The reasons in the application are plausible and valid. Consequently, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and we proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits.

4. It was the submission that the only issue in the appeal is against the action of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act wherein the assessee has been denied the benefit of deduction u/s 80P of the Act. It was the submission that the assessee has been denied the benefit of section 80P on the ground that the return had not been filed within the due date prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act. It was the submission that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Coordinate Rajkot Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Lunidhar Seva Sahkari Mandali Ltd. vs. Assessing Officer (CPC) reported in [2023]

149 taxmann.com 28 (Rajkot-Trib.) wherein it was held as follows:

“7.2 The second issue for consideration is that whether the case of the assessee would fall within the purview of prima facie adjustment under section 143(1)(a)(ii) (an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return). In our view, the scope of the adjustments that can be made under the said provision has been elaborated in the Explanation to the aforesaid section, which does not include denial of deduction claimed by the assessee in case the assessee does not furnish its return of income within the date stipulated under section 139(1) of the Act. The Explanation to the said section specifically provides for cases/instances when the claim made by the assessee could be said to be "incorrect". Therefore, in our considered view, the case of the assessee would also not fall within the purview of prima facie adjustment under section 143(1)(a)(ii) (an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return).

7.3 We note that in the case of Chirakkal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Kannur v. CIT 2016] 68 taxmann.com 298 (Kerala), the Kerala High Court held that a return filed by assessee beyond period stipulated under section 139(1) or 139(4) or under section 142(1) or section 148 can Shree Lunidhar Seva Sahkari Mandali Ltd. vs. A.O. also be accepted and acted upon for entertaining claim raised under section 80P provided further proceedings in relation to such assessments are pending in statutory hierarchy of adjudication in terms of provisions of Act. In the case of ASR Engg. & Projects Ltd. [2019] 111 taxmann.com 49 (Hyderabad - Trib.), the ITAT held that to be eligible to make claim under section 80-IA or any other section of Chapter VI A, assessee should have filed return of income under section 139(1) and even if it did not make claim for deduction in original return and subsequently file revised return making such claim, its claim for deduction under section 80-IA is maintainable. Therefore, where assessee had filed return under section 139(1), it was entitled to claim deduction under section 80-IA ev