2019 (10) TMI 138 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - delay for filing by 32 days - application seeking condonation of delay has been filed stating that the delay was unintentional since the management was tied up with the compliance in new GST regime and the staff who was handed over the work of preparing the appeal and filing it, fell sick. A Duly sworn affidavit of the Director of the assessee company, stating the aforesaid facts on oath was also filed before us - HELD THAT - The affidavit which brings out the reason for the delay merely states that the staff responsible for filing the appeal fell sick not once but twice. There is no mention of the name of the concerned staff. There is no evidence of his having fallen sick except for that the Director has stated the said fact on oath. It appears that there is total lack of sincerity on the part of the assessee regarding such serious matters, as filing appeals, which is evident from the fact that it had left all the work relating to the filing of the appeal to some of its staff which time and again fell sick and no conscious and deliberate effort was even made by the assessee to find out whether the appeal was filed or not. It was only when the Department raised a demand that the assessee woke and filed the appeal. But considering the smallness of the delay, the reasons stated on oath by the Director of the assessee company and in the interest of justice we condone the delay Deduction u/s 80IC denied - not adhering the provision of section 80AC - return filed in the impugned case was beyond the due date as specified u/s 139(1) - HELD THAT - It has not been disputed at any stage that the law mandates the filing of return claiming the impugned deduction by the due date of filing of return as per section 139(1) of the Act. It is also an admitted fact that the return filed in the impugned case was beyond the due date as specified u/s 139(1) of the Act. The CIT(A), we find, has referred to decision of Saffire Garments 2012 (12) TMI 193 - ITAT RAJKOT , the ITAT Kolkatta Bench in the case of Singhal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 2019 (5) TMI 1023 - CESTAT NEW DELHI . The ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of Lakshmi Energy Foods Limited 2015 (10) TMI 986 - ITAT CHANDIGARH and other decisions of the ITAT, directly on the issue while upholding the disallowance. No contrary decision has been brought to our notice by way of any written submission filed or otherwise. In view of the same, we hold, that the ratio laid down in the said decisions has been rightly applied by the CIT(A) in the present case, disallowing the claim of deduction u/s 80IC of the Act - Appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Denial of deduction under section 80IC of the Income Tax Act due to late filing of the return.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The appeal was delayed by 32 days. The assessee filed an application seeking condonation of the delay, stating that the delay was unintentional due to compliance with the new GST regime and the illness of the staff responsible for preparing and filing the appeal. A duly sworn affidavit from the Director of the assessee company was provided, detailing the reasons for the delay. The Tribunal noted that the affidavit lacked specific details such as the name of the concerned staff and evidence of illness. Despite observing a lack of sincerity on the part of the assessee in handling such serious matters, the Tribunal condoned the delay considering the smallness of the delay and the reasons stated on oath by the Director, in the interest of justice.

2. Denial of Deduction under Section 80IC Due to Late Filing of the Return:
The sole issue in the appeal was the denial of the claim of deduction under section 80IC amounting to ?75,17,116/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) denied this claim because the assessee failed to file the return by the due date as mandated by section 139(1) of the Act. The return was filed on 9.11.2013, while the due date was 30.9.2012. The AO referred to section 80AC, which mandates filing the return on or before the due date for claiming the deduction, and thus disallowed the deduction.

The matter was appealed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], who upheld the AO's decision. The CIT(A) cited several judicial precedents, including the Special Bench decision in the case of Saffire Garments and decisions of the ITAT Kolkata and Chandigarh Benches in similar cases, which held that the provisions of section 80AC are mandatory. The CIT(A) concluded that once the return is filed late beyond the due date provided under section 139(1), the deduction under section 80IC cannot be allowed.

The Tribunal reviewed the order of the CIT(A) and found no infirmity. It was undisputed that the law mandates filing the return by the due date for claiming the deduction and that the return in this case was filed beyond the due date. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that no contrary decisions were presented. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) rightly applied the ratio laid down in the cited decisions, disallowing the claim of deduction under section 80IC.

Conclusion:
The appeal of the assessee was dismissed, and the order pronounced in the Open Court upheld the denial of the deduction under section 80IC due to the late filing of the return.