9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 1147 - AT - Income TaxEntitlement to deduction under section 80-IB - Held that - Since the assessee had filed the return of income belatedly on September 20, 2010, the assessee was not entitled for deduction under section 80-IB of the Act. The assessee has made a plea before us, that there was an error in filling e-return of income which is too technical is to be ignored. In our opinion, this was considered by the Tribunal on the earlier occasion and the Tribunal had given the findings in the assessee s own case for this assessment year 2015 (8) TMI 692 - ITAT CHENNAI which is staring at the assessee wherein it observed that reading of the print out of the e-return of the assessee clearly show that there was an attempt to mislead the Department. The assessee after working out tax dues, showed taxes paid as 1,38,84,356 when the total even as per the assessee s figure itself ought to have been more. In such a situation, we cannot say that claim for granting deduction under section 80-IB was unjustly rejected by the Assessing Officer. The assessee had preferred no such claim in its return at all. This seems to be the right decision taken by the Assessing Officer. - Decided against assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of the claim of deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Income-tax Act. 2. Timeliness and correctness of filing the return of income. 3. Rectification of the intimation under section 143(1) and subsequent appeals. Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of the Claim of Deduction under Section 80-IB(10): The primary grievance of the assessee in both appeals was the disallowance of the deduction claimed under section 80-IB(10) of the Income-tax Act. The original return of income for the assessment year 2010-11 was filed electronically on September 20, 2010. The return was processed under section 143(1) by the CPC, Bangalore, which computed the deduction under Chapter VI-A at Rs. 1,00,000, although the assessee claimed Rs. 3,84,50,966. The assessee's application for rectification was rejected, leading to an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who allowed the appeal. However, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, noting that the Commissioner had rectified his order and dismissed the assessee's appeal. Subsequently, the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax disallowed the deduction again in an order dated March 28, 2013, which was upheld by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on November 12, 2014. 2. Timeliness and Correctness of Filing the Return of Income: The assessee argued that the return was filed within the due date, considering the statutory audit under section 44AB. However, the Department contended that the return was filed belatedly on September 20, 2010, instead of the extended due date of August 4, 2010, for individuals not required to get their accounts audited. The Department pointed out discrepancies in the electronically filed return, including the declaration that the assessee was not liable for audit under section 44AB and the absence of the audit report date. 3. Rectification of the Intimation under Section 143(1) and Subsequent Appeals: The Tribunal noted that the return filed by the assessee did not claim the deduction under section 80-IB(10) in the computation of total income. The downloaded version of the e-return showed a claimed deduction of Rs. 1,00,000 under Chapter VI-A, not Rs. 3,84,50,966 as asserted by the assessee. The Tribunal found that the assessee attempted to mislead the Department by showing incorrect figures in the return. The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's decision to reject the rectification application, as the claim for deduction was not made in the original return. The Tribunal cited its earlier order, which had reached finality, supporting the disallowance of the deduction. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed both appeals, concluding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction under section 80-IB(10) due to the belated filing of the return and the discrepancies in the e-return. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee should have reported any technical errors in the e-return promptly, which was not done, leading to the dismissal of the appeals. The order was pronounced on May 1, 2015, at Chennai.
|
