9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 230X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainst the facts of the case. 2. That the learned CIT (Appeals) has greatly erred in law and on facts of the case in:- a) In treating the return filed by the assessee on 30.09.2012 as on 01.10.2012 when the acknowledgement receipt available with the assessee was for 30th Sept'2012 and it was clearly explained to ITO & CIT (A) that the return has been uploaded at 11.55 P.M. on 30.09.2012 and treating the same as filed on 01.10.2012 is totally incorrect and unwarranted by law. b) That the above matter was referred to DIT System Bangalore wherein it has been mentioned that the return has been uploaded in their system on 01.10.2012.at 00.00.20. The delay of 20 Seconds can be due to technical reasons, as there is last minute rush of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hown in e-filing portal as well as claimed by the assessee is same as 507934051011012. Since the last 06 digits of acknowledgement representing the date of filing of return, which is 01.10.2012 is clearly showing that the assessee has filed its return of income on 01-10-2012, i.e after the due date of filing return u/s 139(1) of the Act, therefore, assessee vide letter dated 27/29-01- 2015 was asked to show cause as to why deduction claimed u/s 80IA amounting to Rs. 34,34,128/- should not be disallowed. 4. The A.O observed that in response to the same, the assessee claimed vide letter dated 21-02-2015 that the date shown in the return downloaded from e-filing portal is not correct as it claimed that the return which the assessee uploaded h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eover assessee also failed to file any evidence to prove that it had filed return of income on 30-09-2012 except a copy of ack., authenticity of which was not proved in view of the facts discussed. Not satisfied with the reply tendered by the assessee, the A.O disallowed the deduction claimed u/s 80IA of the Act amounting to Rs. 34,34,128/-. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A) who confirmed the action of the AO. 7. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case available on record. It was pointed out by the ld. Counsel for the assessee that E-Return for A.Y 2012-12 was, in fact, filed on 30.09.2012 and the same has been digitally signed on the same date i.e. 30.09.2012. There is no dispute to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovisions contained in section 80AC as regards the time limit for filing the return of income is directory but not mandatory in view of the aforesaid provisions of the Act permitting relaxation of the time limit for filing the return. It is to be distinctly understood that such relaxation is statutory in nature [as it ii allowed by the Statute itself] and not administrative in character." 10. It was argued by the ld. AR that the assessee is legally entitled for deduction and nothing has been brought on record to show that the assessee is not legally entitled for such deduction. In my considered opinion, the claim of the assessee cannot be denied on the basis of technicalities when the assessee is otherwise entitled to deduction. According ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
