2023 (4) TMI 795 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction u/s 80IA - denial of deduction as assessee might not have filled the columns of corresponding schedule u/s 80IA or might not have e-filed the Form 10CCB within the due date - HELD THAT - It is neither the case of the Assessing Officer nor of the CIT(A) that the assessee is not entitled to claim deduction u/s 80IA - CPC has denied the claim only on the basis of vague and ambiguous reasons. As held time and again by the courts of law that the Income Tax Authorities must charge the legitimate taxes from the taxpayers. If an assessee is entitled to certain deductions under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, the same should not be disallowed, merely because of any bona fide mistake or error on the part of the taxpayer, rather, the Income Tax Authorities should assist the concerned assessees in filing their correct returns of income. This is not the case of the Department that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction claimed u/s 80IA. As decided in G. M. Knitting Industries (P) Ltd. Others 2015 (11) TMI 397 - SC ORDER that even though, necessary certificate in Form 10CCB along with the return of income has not been filed, but, if the same was filed before the final order of assessment, the assessee, even in such circumstances, would be entitled for claim of deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. The facts of the assessee's case are on much better footing. The assessee has duly filed the audit report before the due date of filing of the return of income which was very much part of the return of income as on the due date of filing of the return of income. Lower authorities in denying the deduction u/s 80IA of the Act to the assessee cannot be held to be justified - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Upholding additions/disallowances made by ADIT-CPC under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Disallowance under section 80-IA of the Act.
3. Addition towards delay in deposit of employees' contribution to provident fund and ESI.
4. Dispute regarding the levy of excess interest under sections 234B and 234C of the Act.

1. Upholding additions/disallowances made by ADIT-CPC under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act:
The appellant contested the additions/disallowances made by the CIT(A) based on the ADIT-CPC's order under section 143(1) of the Act. The appellant argued that the CIT(A) erred in upholding these additions without providing an opportunity for personal hearing or video conferencing, thus violating principles of natural justice. The appellant also challenged the CIT(A)'s decision on the grounds of procedural errors and lack of justifications for disallowances. However, the Tribunal emphasized that the Income Tax Authorities should assist taxpayers in filing correct returns and not disallow legitimate deductions due to bona fide mistakes. Citing relevant case laws, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, setting aside the CIT(A)'s decision and directing the Assessing Officer to allow the deductions claimed by the appellant.

2. Disallowance under section 80-IA of the Act:
The appellant contested the disallowance made by the CIT(A) under section 80-IA of the Act, amounting to Rs. 4,019,494. The appellant argued that all necessary details were correctly filled in the return of income and that the disallowance was based on vague and ambiguous reasons. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) and ADIT-CPC's reasons for disallowance lacked specificity and did not establish any entitlement issues regarding the deduction claimed under section 80-IA. Relying on legal precedents and the appellant's timely filing of required documents, the Tribunal held that the disallowance was unjustified. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s decision and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction claimed under section 80-IA.

3. Addition towards delay in deposit of employees' contribution to provident fund and ESI:
The appellant challenged the addition of Rs. 278,455 towards delay in depositing employees' contributions to provident fund and ESI under section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the CIT(A)'s decision to add this amount despite no incorrect claims in the appellant's return of income. Moreover, the Tribunal highlighted the importance of judicial discipline and cited a contradictory judgment in a similar case. However, the Tribunal did not provide a detailed analysis or ruling on this specific issue in the judgment.

4. Dispute regarding the levy of excess interest under sections 234B and 234C of the Act:
The appellant contested the levy of excess interest under sections 234B and 234C of the Act. The Tribunal noted the appellant's argument that interest under section 234C should be computed based on the income declared in the return of income, not on the income computed in the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act. While the Tribunal acknowledged this argument, no detailed analysis or ruling was provided in the judgment regarding this specific issue.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment primarily focused on the disallowance under section 80-IA of the Act and the general principle of assisting taxpayers in claiming legitimate deductions. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the CIT(A)'s decisions and directing the Assessing Officer to allow the deductions claimed by the appellant.