9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 950X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2015 (Delay in refiling) 1. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 296 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. 2. The application stands disposed of. ITA 239/2015 3. This is an Appeal by the Revenue against the order dated 18th December, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT') in ITA No. 1014/Del/2012 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09. 4. In the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act, was mandatory. 6. The ITAT in the impugned order allowing appeal filed by the Assessee noted that there was a cleavage of opinion on the issue as was evident from two lines of decisions of the ITAT itself. Since a possible view in favour of the Assessee could be taken if one line of decisions was applied, the ITAT concluded that there was no justification for CIT to have invoked the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TAT Mumbai Bench in ITA No. 4727/Mum/2012 (Dwarkadas Panchmatiya v. ACIT). 8. Mr Salil Aggarwal, learned counsel for the Assessee, on the other hand, has placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in CIT v. Integrated Databases (I) Ltd. (2009) 178 Taxman 432 (Del) and CIT v. Contimeters Electricals (P) Ltd. (2009) 178 Taxman422 (Del). He also placed reliance on the decision dated 26th June 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egrated Databases (I) Ltd. (supra) and CIT v. Contimeters Electricals (P) Ltd. (supra) were on the question whether the provision of Section 10-B (5) of the Act which requires the filing of a report of an accountant along with the return was mandatory. Neither decision was directly on question whether the time limit for filing the return in terms of Section 80AC read with Section 139 (1) of the Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he said provision is mandatory or directory. 10. As far as the present case is concerned, the Court is satisfied that at the time when the CIT passed the order dated 6th February, 2012 under Section 263 of the Act there was a conflict of opinions of the various benches of the ITAT on whether 80AC was mandatory. Consequently, the ITAT was not in error in reversing the order of the CIT as far as th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
