9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Even otherwise, it is not the case of the Revenue that the assessee is not entitled for the relief u/s.80P as well as u/s.10(23C) of the Act. Therefore when the entire income of ₹ 2,52,18,534/- was eligible for exemption, then allowing the claim of the assessee by the CIT (A) is proper and justified In the case on hand, when the CIT (A) has already issued a remand order giving full opportunity to the AO for examination of the claim, then in the absence of any claim of the Revenue that assessee is not entitled for the exemption u/s.80P and 10(23C) of he Act, we do not find any error or reason to interfere with the impugned order of the CIT (A). - Decided against revenue - I.T.A No. 922/Bang/2014 - - - Dated:- 29-4-2016 - Shri Vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he year under consideration assessee filed its return of income on 28.03.2011. The return was processed u/s.143(1)(a)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' in short), vide intimation dt.10.05.2011. In the said intimation the AO at CPC processed the return and added a sum of ₹ 2,95,98,463/- under the head ' income from business or profession' and raised a demand of ₹ 2,35,69,278/-. 4. Aggrieved by the said addition and consequential demand, assessee filed an appeal before the CIT (A) and contended that the assessee has shown nil income in the return of income. It was pointed out that in the return of income against computation of profits of business or profession it had disclosed the income and then claime ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen claiming exemption of the same, cannot be a reason for making such addition by the AO when the income was otherwise not taxable in the hands of the assessee. In support of his contention he has relied upon the decision of Mumbai bench of this Tribunal in the case of Shrikant Real Estates P. Ltd v. ITO [22 ITR (Trib) 266]. Ld. AR pointed out that this is a bonafide mistake in the ereturn filed by the assessee and therefore the AO was not justified in making the addition without examining the claim of the assessee of exemption. 7. Having considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record, at the out set we note that in the return of income the assessee has not admitted any income but the total income was shown ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3.2 The AO [in this case the ACIT (CPC)] was, therefore, not justified in making the additions or disallowances. However, no attempt is made here to annul the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act though such an action is called for in the appellate proceedings since the additions/disallowances made by the AO are deleted. The remand report called for from the AO has not been received despite several reminders. The findings in this order are based on the earlier order, available facts on the file, which however do not preclude the AO from taking action as per law. 8. As it is clear that despite the expiry of more than 18 months, AO did not respond to the remand order of the CIT (A) and therefore the CIT (A) was left with no option but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t having the expert knowledge of preparing an XML file. XML file so created is uploaded to the official Website, i.e. www.Incometaxindiaefiling.gov.in. Once the return is uploaded, ITR-V, which is the acknowledgment of the return so filed, is generated by the system itself and if the return is not signed digitally, the ITR-V so generated has to be signed and sent to the Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru within 120 days. 8. Keeping in mind this system of e-filing of the returns, coming back to the facts of the case, we find that the assessee has claimed shortterm capital gains and has shown it in the revised e-return but the same figure did not appear under the item where the short-term capital gain is to be taxed at special rate un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
