ITAT Denies Section 13A Exemption to INC for Late ITR

Case Details: Indian National Congress All India Congress Committee v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2025] 176 taxmann.com 688 (Delhi-Trib.)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member
• P.C. Sen, Sr. Adv., Prasanna, N. Bhalla, Advs. & L.M. Garg, CA for the Appellant.
• Zoheb Hossain, Special Counsel, Vipul Agrawal, Sr. Standing Counsel, Sanjeev Menon, Adv. & Ms Purvi Nanda, ACIT for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The assessee, a political party, filed its return of income for the relevant assessment year after the due date. The return was filed after the due date, as per section 139(1), but within the extended due date as per section 139(4).

The Assessing Officer (AO) contended that the assessee failed to satisfy the conditions specified in Section 13A, as its return was filed after the due date. Thus, its voluntary contributions would be included in its taxable income.

The assessee contended that although the return was filed after the ‘due date’ under section 139(1), it was still within the permissible time under section 139(4), and hence the exemption should not be denied.

The CIT(A) upheld the additions made by the AO, and the matter reached the Delhi Tribunal.

ITAT Held

The Tribunal held that it is a well-settled principle that special dispensation will prevail over general dispensation. Section 13A of the Act provides for a special dispensation for political parties. The 3rd proviso to Section 13A of the Act was inserted vide Finance Act 2017. It is well-settled that a proviso added by way of amendment is the last will of the legislature.

Furthermore, a provision introduced by way of an amendment with a proviso is often construed as a non-obstante clause. The terminal point under the third proviso for filing a return to get the benefit of Section 13A is “on or before the due date”. The term “due date” is defined specifically in Explanation 2 to Section 139(1).

Once a word has been defined in a statute, the same meaning has to be accorded to the word when it is used in more than one place, else the object of the definition clause would be defeated. A proviso cannot be interpreted in a manner that renders it otiose.

Further, the assessee’s interpretation of the term “due date” as per Section 139(4) would render the term “due date” as per Section 139(1) redundant. It would also be against the well-settled principle of interpretation that a proviso cannot be interpreted in a manner that renders it otiose. Therefore, the assessee’s interpretation of the term “due date” as per Section 139(4) cannot be accepted.

List of Cases Referred to

• Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar & Company [2018] 95 taxmann.com 327/69 GST 239/2018 (361) E.L.T. 577 (SC) (FB) (para 9).