9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase, the original return of income in ITRâEUR"4 for the assessment year 2010-11 was filed electronically by the assessee on September 20, 2010 vide e-filing acknowledgment No. 156323040200910. The return was processed under section 143(1) by the CPC, Bangalore on March 12, 2011, whereby in the Income-tax computation, the deduction under Chapter VI-A was computed at Rs. 1,00,000, though the deduction claimed by the assessee in the return of income was Rs. 3,84,50,966. The assessee preferred an application for rectification of the intimation dated March 12, 2011, but the same was rejected by the CPC Bangalore vide its order dated July 26, 2011. Against this order of rectification, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-I, Chennai, who vide his order in I. T. A. No. 84/11-12 dated August 3, 2012, allowed the appeal of the assessee. The Department preferred an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal vide its order in I. T. A No. 1997/Mds/2012 dated February 7, 2013 dismissed the appeal of the Revenue after it was pointed out that vide order under section 154 dated October 16, 2012, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he relevant columns of page 1 reads as under : "Are you liable for audit under section 44AB ....................... No" In page 16 Part-B-Computation of total income column 11 reads as under : Deduction under Chapter VI-A (S of Schedule VI-A . . .) Rs. 1,00,000. In column 16 of page 18, the e-filing acknowledgment No. is given, which tallies with the copy of the e-filed return purportedly filed by the assessee. Perusal of the downloaded version of the e-filed return shows that the purported deduction under section 80-IB of Rs. 3,83,50,966 was never claimed by the assessee. Moreover, the asses see herself has declared in her return of income that she was not liable to get her accounts audited under section 44AB. The copy of the return as submitted by the assessee in the paper book also does not disclose the date of audit report. As such, it can be safely concluded that the assessee was not required to get her accounts audited is under legal obligation to file her return of income within due date (or as extended by virtue of notification to that effect) as per provisions of section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The extended due date for filing the return of income for indiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20, 2010. The assessee has been hit by the provisions of section 80AC of the Act. The provision of section 80AC reads as follows : "Where in computing the total income of an assessee of the previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing on 1st day of April, 2006 or any subsequent assessment year, any deduction is admissible under section 80-IA or section 80-IAB or section 80-IB or section 80-IC (or section 80-ID or section 80-IE), no such deduction shall be allowed to him unless he furnishes a return of his income for such assessment year on or before the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139. In the instant case, the extended due date was August 4, 2010 and the return was filed belatedly on _September 20, 2010. As per the provisions of section 80AC, the assessee, in order to avail of the benefits of deduction under section Chapter VI-A is required, as per law, to file the return of income within the due date. This has not been done and as such, the assessee is not eligible to avail of the benefit of deduction under section 80-IB." Since the assessee had filed the return of income belatedly on September 20, 2010, the assessee was not entitled for ded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Appeals) on October 16, 2012 realising his mistake, rectified the earlier appellate order, dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee against the rejection of petition by the Assessing Officer. Thus, as the matter stands now, there is no order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated August 3, 2012 in the eyes of law. Hence the appeal filed by the Revenue has become infructuous. Since the cross-objection of the assessee is only to point out the factum of withdrawal of the earlier order by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), it is only a clarification, thus needing no specific adjudication". 9. In such a situation, we cannot say that claim for granting deduction under section 80-IB was unjustly rejected by the Assessing Officer. The assessee had preferred no such claim in its return at all. This seems to be the right decision taken by the Assessing Officer. These findings of us is also supported by the earlier order of the Tribunal which has reached finality. At this stage, we are not in a position to take a different view than the earlier one. Accordingly, in our opinion, the assessee cannot be granted deduction under section 80-IB of the Act. Further, we observe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
