9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 1836 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s. 80IA - Claim made only in the revised return by the assessee - HELD THAT - The assessee had filed the original return of income on 29.11.2006 which was before the due date specified u/s. 139(1) of the Act i.e. 30.11.2006. Thereafter the assessee had filed revised return on 28.03.2008 wherein it claimed deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act. Since the assessee had filed its return of income before the due date specified u/s. 139(1) of the Act for the relevant year the question of denying the benefit u/s. 80IA of the Act does not arise. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) had made the very same observation after interpreting the section 80AC of the Act similar to proviso to sec. 10A(1A) i.e. claim of section 80IA shall be allowed if return is furnished before the due date of filing the return and held that the assessee is squarely entitled for deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act as all the conditions therein were duly fulfilled by the assessee. DR did not refute any of the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) by producing any cogent material or contrary evidence and the submissions made by the Ld. AR before us - No infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the same is hereby upheld. Appeal of revenue is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in granting relief to the assessee in respect of deduction under section 80IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, though the same was claimed only in the revised return. 2. Whether the provisions of section 80IA(7) and section 44AB were correctly interpreted and applied by the CIT(A). Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deduction under Section 80IA in Revised Return: The primary issue is whether the CIT(A) was justified in allowing the deduction under section 80IA of the Act, even though the claim was made in the revised return filed on 28.03.2008 and not in the original return filed on 29.11.2006. The assessee, engaged in civil and structural construction work, initially did not claim the deduction in the original return due to lack of proper advice. Upon receiving advice from a tax consultant, the assessee filed a revised return claiming the deduction, supported by an audit report in Form No. 10CCB obtained on 24.03.2008. The AO denied the deduction based on section 80IA(7), arguing that the audit report should have been filed with the original return. However, the CIT(A) interpreted sections 80A and 80AC, concluding that the statute does not mandate that the deduction claim must be made in the original return. The CIT(A) held that as long as the return is filed within the due date specified in section 139(1) and the accounts are audited, the deduction can be claimed in a revised return as per section 139(5). The CIT(A) relied on the Supreme Court decision in Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT, which allowed claims through revised returns, and the Calcutta High Court decision in CIT vs. Universal Trading Co., which stated that the term "return of income" includes revised returns. The CIT(A) also referred to the Delhi ITAT decision in Laxmi Rice Mills vs. ITO, which allowed deductions under similar circumstances. 2. Interpretation and Application of Section 80IA(7) and Section 44AB: The second issue concerns the interpretation and application of section 80IA(7) and section 44AB. The revenue argued that section 80IA(7) mandates that the audit report must be filed with the return of income. The CIT(A) countered this by stating that the requirement is for the return to be filed within the due date, not necessarily the original return. The CIT(A) emphasized that the audit report was obtained and filed with the revised return within the permissible period under section 139(5). The revenue also raised a point regarding section 44AB, which requires the accounts to be audited by the specified date. The CIT(A) found that the tax audit report was signed on 16.10.2006, before the original return was filed on 29.11.2006, thus complying with section 44AB. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee filed the original return within the due date and the revised return with the deduction claim was valid. The Tribunal referenced several judicial precedents supporting the view that revised returns can rectify omissions in the original return and that beneficial provisions should be interpreted liberally in favor of the assessee. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s order that the assessee was entitled to the deduction under section 80IA, as the revised return was valid and all statutory conditions were met. The Tribunal emphasized that the beneficial provisions of the Act should not be denied on technical grounds and should be interpreted to promote growth. The decision was pronounced in the open court on 15.03.2017.
|
