9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 434 - AT - Income TaxRectification of mistake - whether provisions of sec.80AC of the Act are mandatory or directory? - Held that - Not making a reference to the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. Unitech Ltd. (2015 (10) TMI 950 - DELHI HIGH COURT) is neither a mistake apparent from the record nor does it cause any prejudice to the assessee. For the very same reasons not making a reference to the decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Straw Board Manufacturing Ltd. (1989 (4) TMI 4 - SUPREME Court) and Poddar Cements Pvt. Ltd. (1997 (5) TMI 2 - SUPREME Court) by the Tribunal in it s order does not give rise to any mistake apparent on the face of the order of the Tribunal as on the principle (a) a liberal construction should be put on the language of a statute when concessional rates are provided for encouraging an industrial activity and (b) when two interpretations are possible, the view in favour of the assessee has to be adopted. Both these decisions cannot be applied by the Tribunal to hold that provisions of sec.80AC of the Act are directory only, contrary to the decision of Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of M/s Shelcon Properties (P)Ltd. (2015 (3) TMI 579 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT). We are therefore of the view that there is no mistake apparent on the face of the record of the Tribunal.
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for deduction under Section 80IE of the Income Tax Act. 2. Timeliness of filing the return of income under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act. 3. Rectification of errors under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Eligibility for Deduction under Section 80IE: The Assessee, a company engaged in the business of brewery and bottling, claimed a deduction under Section 80IE of the Income Tax Act on income derived from bottling charges. The Assessing Officer (AO) denied this deduction, arguing that the income did not qualify as it was not derived from manufacturing or producing an article or thing listed in the fourteenth schedule of the Act. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal upheld this view, stating that the bottling charges did not meet the conditions for deduction under Section 80IE. 2. Timeliness of Filing the Return of Income: The AO also noted that the Assessee filed the return for the Assessment Year 2010-11 on 31.03.2011, beyond the due date prescribed under Section 139(1). According to Section 80AC of the Act, deductions under Chapter VI-A, which includes Section 80IE, are only permissible if the return is filed on or before the due date. The Tribunal referenced the Special Bench decision in Saffire Garments Vs. ITO, which held that the requirement to file within the prescribed time is mandatory. The Tribunal also cited the Calcutta High Court decision in CIT Vs. Shelcon Properties (P) Ltd., which confirmed the mandatory nature of Section 80AC. 3. Rectification of Errors under Section 254(2): The Assessee filed a Miscellaneous Application (MA) under Section 254(2) seeking rectification of apparent errors in the Tribunal's order dated 22.09.2017. The Assessee argued that the Tribunal's order did not reference several judicial decisions that supported their case, including decisions from the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court. The Tribunal, however, found no merit in this argument, stating that the decision of the jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in Shelcon Properties (P) Ltd. was binding. The Tribunal held that the omission of references to other decisions did not constitute a mistake apparent from the record, nor did it breach the principles of natural justice. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Assessee's Miscellaneous Application, holding that there was no apparent error in its original order. The Tribunal reiterated that the provisions of Section 80AC are mandatory, and the return must be filed within the due date prescribed under Section 139(1) to claim deductions under Chapter VI-A. The Tribunal also emphasized that it was bound by the jurisdictional High Court's decision, and the omission of references to other judicial decisions did not constitute an error requiring rectification.
|
