9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jected 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. - Decided against assessee. - I.T.A. No.82 /Mds/2015, I.T.A. No.83 /Mds/2015 - - - Dated:- 1-5-2015 - SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri. G. Gopalan, Retd JCIT Shri. T. Vasu, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri. S. Dasgupta, IRS, JCIT ORDER Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member).- These two appeals by different assessees are directed against different orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-I, Chennai, dated November 12, 2014 for the above assessment year 2010-11. Since the issue in these two appeals is common in nature, hence these appeals are combined, heard together, and disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience. 2. The grievance of the assessee in these appeals is with regard to disallowing the claim of deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Act. Since the issue is common in nature in both appeals, we consider the facts as narrated in I. T. A. No. 82/Mds/2015 for adjudication. 3. In this case, the original return of incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide acknowledgment No. 156323040200910. The learned Departmental representative pointed out that the return of income was filed belatedly on September 20, 2010 instead of August 4, 2010, since ours is 44AB case and the last date is September 30, 2010. The assessee is an individual and the turnover of the assessee in 80-IB itself is ₹ 5,41,12,425 44AB, Forms 3CB and 3CD dated September 20, 2010 were filed. Therefore, the last date for filing the return of income is September 30, 2010, the return of income is filed on September 24, 2010, which is well within the time limit under section 139(1). The Department counsel argued that the assessee did not claim deduction under section 80-IB(10) under Chapter VI-A in the computation of total income. As revealed from the copy of electronically filed e-return in Form ITR-4 downloaded from the Departmental website www.incometaxindiaefiling.gov.in the deduction under Chapter VI-A of ₹ 3,84,50,966 was claimed. 5. The learned Departmental representative submitted that as is evident from the copy of the downloaded version (downloaded on October 8, 2012) of the computation of total income and tax thereon (ITR-4) , the relevant colum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income as seen from the records the return in Form ITR-4 reads as under : 8. It was mentioned that the assessee is not liable to maintain accounts as per section 44AA of the Act. As seen from the above, the assessee filled column regarding applicability of provisions under section 44AB as end (No). A copy of the return said to be downloaded by the assessee does not contain the date of audit report as pointed out by the learned Departmental representative. It was stated that the assessee was not required to get her accounts audited under section 44AB and so the assessee has not got audited accounts. Consequently, no audit report was filed. The assessee being an individual, who is not required to get her accounts audited is under legal obligation to file her return of income within due date by virtue of section 139(1) of the Act for the assessment year under consideration. In this case there is extended due date for filing the return of income for individual as the assessee is not required to get her accounts audited for the impugned assessment year and due date for filing the return of income was August 4, 2010. The assessee has filed return of income on September 20, 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laries and income from other sources, the gross total income of the assessee was ₹ 8,98,13,395. Against the column for showing deduction under Chapter VI-A, the assessee gave the figure of ₹ 1,00,000. However, in the column showing the total income of ₹ 5,13,62,429 was shown. A reading of the print out of the e-return of the assessee clearly show that there was an attempt to mislead the Department. The assessee after working out tax dues, showed taxes paid as ₹ 1,38,84,356 when the total even as per the assessee's figure itself ought to have been more. In such a situation, we cannot say that the application for rectification filed by the assessee for granting it a deduction of ₹ 8,62,93,033 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. On the other hand, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had accepted the claim of the assessee going into the merits when the rectification was rejected by the Assessing Officer based on the figures given in the e-return filed by the asses see. In any case, the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ead of August 4, 2010, since ours is 44AB case and last date is September 30, 2010. The assessee is an individual and the turnover of the assessee in 80-IB itself is ₹ 7,08,79,942 44AB, Forms 3CB and 3CD dated September 24, 2010 filed. Therefore, the last date for filing the return of income is September 30, 2010, the return of income is filed on September 24, 2010, which is well within the time limit under section 139(1). The Department's counsel argued that the assessee did not claim deduction under section 80-IB(10) under Chapter VI-A in the computation of total income. As revealed from the copy of electronically filed e-return in Form ITR-4 downloaded from the Departmental website www.incometaxindiaefiling.gov.in the deduction under Chapter VI-A of ₹ 5,20,46,942 was claimed. 10.1. The learned Departmental representative made similar submissions as in the case of Smt. P. Bhavani. 10.2. Since the facts in this case is identical to the case of P. Bhavani, this appeal is also dismissed on similar line. 11. In the result, both appeals of the assessee in I. T. A. Nos. 82 and 83/Mds/ 2015 are dismissed. The order pronounced on Friday, the 1st day of May, 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
