9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (6) TMI 617 - AT - Income TaxRectification u/s 154 - eligible for deduction u/s 80IA (4) - HELD THAT - There is no doubt that the assessee has suppressed the facts of his activity and filed return of income before obtaining report in prescribed Form no. 3 CEB dated 22.10.2011. Since this is the 8th year for claiming deduction u/s 80 IA (4) considering the submissions from both the sides we remit this issue back to the file of AO for de-novo assessment. Needless to say that the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Assessee is directed not to seek unnecessary adjournments, and appear before the Assessing Officer on or before 30.09.2021 within three effective opportunities at assessee s own risk and responsibility. Assessee s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes
Issues:
Challenging non-granting of relief by CIT(A) against order passed u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Analysis: 1. Background and Facts: The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)-11, Hyderabad, challenging the non-granting of relief by the CIT(A) against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee had filed the return of income declaring a gross total income and claimed a deduction under section 80 IA (4)(i) of the Act. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act, and the benefit of deduction under chapter VI A of the Act was not given to the assessee. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer passed an order rejecting the claim of the assessee, leading to the appeal before the CIT(A) and eventually before the tribunal. 2. Arguments by the Assessee: The assessee's representative submitted that there was an error in filling the audit information column and that the deduction under section 80 IA(4) should have been granted. The representative argued that the assessee was involved in international transactions, obtained necessary reports from a Chartered Accountant, and that it was the 8th year of claiming the deduction. Several judgments were cited in support of the argument. The representative also requested restoration of the issue to the Assessing Officer for further examination. 3. Arguments by the Revenue: The Revenue, on the other hand, relied on the orders of the lower authorities and contended that there was no mistake on record. It was argued that since the assessee filed the return after the due date and did not disclose the necessary Form No.3 CEB, the claim for deduction under section 80 IA(4) was not valid. 4. Tribunal's Decision: After considering the arguments and examining the material on record, the tribunal found that the assessee had not disclosed all relevant facts and filed the return before obtaining the necessary report in Form no. 3 CEB. Given that it was the 8th year of claiming the deduction under section 80 IA(4), the tribunal remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for a de-novo assessment. The assessee was directed to appear before the Assessing Officer within a specified timeline and was advised not to seek unnecessary adjournments. The tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes based on the above terms. 5. Conclusion: The tribunal's decision highlights the importance of disclosing all relevant information and complying with procedural requirements while claiming deductions under the Income Tax Act. The case underscores the need for thorough assessment and adherence to timelines to ensure a fair and accurate determination of tax liabilities.
|
