2019 (1) TMI 1479 - HC - Income Tax

Belated claim for deduction u/s 80IB - deduction under Section 80IB in view of the bar provided by Section 80AC - alleged grievance that the assessee had not in fact received the intimation under 143(1) - Held that - A consideration of the orders of the lower appellate authorities clearly discloses that even the AO, after considering the grounds urged by the assessee in the return filed by it pursuant to the search and seizure, accepted the deduction claim. In these circumstances, the acceptance of that deduction, however, in the appeal by the CIT(A) even upon an erroneous presumption that an intimation was not generated to the assessee at the relevant time, is of no consequence. All the Revenue authorities AO as well as the CIT examined the deduction claim on merits and what is more, we also notice that for the previous years as well similar benefits had been granted. Given these circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises

Summary

Issues:
1. Claim for deduction under Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 after the due date for filing returns.
2. Interpretation of Sections 139(1) and 80AC regarding the belated claim for deduction.
3. Acceptance of deduction claim by lower appellate authorities despite belated claim.
4. Alleged grievance of the assessee not receiving intimation under Section 143(1).

Analysis:
1. The case involved an appeal (ITA 55/2019) concerning the deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 after the due date for filing returns. The Revenue contended that the assessee could not have claimed the deduction due to the bar provided by Section 80AC. The assessee had filed its return after the due date, claiming a deduction of a certain amount under Section 80IB, which was subsequently processed.

2. The Revenue argued that the belated claim for deduction under Section 80IB precluded the relief as per the mandate of Sections 139(1) and 80AC. However, the lower appellate authorities, including the AO and CIT(A), accepted the deduction claim on merits. Despite an alleged grievance regarding the non-receipt of intimation under Section 143(1), the Court found that all Revenue authorities examined the deduction claim thoroughly, and similar benefits had been granted in previous years.

3. The Court observed that the acceptance of the deduction claim by the CIT(A), even if based on an erroneous presumption of non-receipt of intimation, did not affect the validity of the claim. Given that the deduction claim was considered on merits by all relevant authorities and similar benefits had been granted in previous years, the Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the decision of the lower appellate authorities.

4. In summary, the High Court's judgment in this case centered on the belated claim for deduction under Section 80IB, the interpretation of Sections 139(1) and 80AC, the acceptance of the deduction claim by lower appellate authorities, and the alleged grievance of the assessee regarding the intimation under Section 143(1). The Court found that the deduction claim had been examined thoroughly on merits by all Revenue authorities, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as no substantial question of law was identified.