9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 558X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the return of income with Centralized Processing Centre, Bangalore only on 16-10-2010 by 11AM. Accordingly, I allow the claim of the assessee and this issue of the assessee’s appeal is allowed. - ITA No.1741/Mum/2017 - - - Dated:- 14-6-2017 - SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM For The Assessee : Shri Ramesh R Iyer, AR For The Revenue : Shri Purushottam Kumar, DR ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of CIT(A)-26, Mumbai, in appeal No. CIT(A)-26/IT/405/13-14 dated 20-12-2016. The intimation was issued by Central Processing Centre, Bangalore, u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (hereinafter the Act ) dated 09-05-2011 by ACIT (CPC). 2. The only issue in this appeal of asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turnover exceeded the limit prescribed u/s. 44AB of the Act 1961 for A.Y. 2010-11, the Assessee was liable for Tax Audit and hence filing of Income Tax return through electronic mode was mandatory. The Chartered Accountant had prepared the return along with the necessary annexures on 15th October, 2010 but due to heavy pressure on computer server of the Centralized Processing Center (CPC) Income Tax Department, Bangalore, the return filing was slow till 8 p.m. Thereafter the Chartered Accountant tried to upload the income tax return, but the same could not he uploaded due to the mismatch between the date of formation with the income tax database and date as per the data available with the Chartered Accountant. He tried to obtain the date o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #39; own case. In those cases, the concerned appellants have filed application for condonation of delay in filing ROl u/s 119(2) of the Act before the CBDT. In the instant case, appellant has not made any such effort. Moreover, appellant has submitted that as the appellant's turnover till A.Y. 2009-10 was below the prescribed limit u/s. 44AB of the Act, he was not liable for Tax Audit and therefore filing of Income Tax Return manually. While filing the manual Income Tax Return the basic requirement was the PAN. Date of Birth/ Formation/ Incorporation was not mandatory in case of appellant other than individual. As the appellant's turnover exceeded the limit prescribed u/s. 44AB of the Act for A.Y. 2010-11, he was liable for Tax Audi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e because of non-deliberate delay. In the present case, the Assessee is not vigilant and also not explained the reasons for delay. As the Chartered Accountant, has tried his level best to file the Income Tax return on due date but could not file due to exceptional circumstances beyond the control of the appellant, hence the delay in filing the return should be condoned and the deduction u/s. 80113(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 be allowed. It is clear that appellant was not vigilant enough to provide all the details to his AR for filing ROl online that too at the fag-end of due date of filing of ROl. The AR also has not shown due diligence to obtain all the details from the Appellant regarding the correct date of formation. All these fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
