9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1606X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HC and 80-IA of the Act, is an issue which is highly debatable. As is recorded in the impugned order also, the matter is pending before the larger Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Micro Labs Ltd. [2015 (12) TMI 708 - SUPREME COURT]. Thus it cannot be said to be a bonafide omission in the original return to make a claim of the deduction clearly admissible to the assessee. The issue being a debatable one, the revised return for that purpose could not have been filed by the assessee and Respondent No.1 cannot be faulted in rejecting such condonation of delay application. The petitioner-assessee cannot seek the condonation of delay in filing the revised return for such purposes as a matter of right even though such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... afresh in the revised return of income. ii. As per the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz Indian Limited Vs. CIT (284 ITR 323(SC)(2006)), a deduction not claimed in the Original Return of Income can be claimed only by way of Revised Return of Income. In the instant case, the applicant claimed deduction u/s 80HHC in revised return of income which was filed beyond the time limit mentioned in Sec.139(5). iii. Whether the deduction u/s 80HHC can be claimed, when the deduction u/s 80IA is already claimed is debatable in view of Sec.80IA(9) of IT Act, the Return of Income filed may be revised u/s 139(5) only when there is a bonafide omission or an inadvertent mistake. But a Return of Income cannot be revised t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for condoning the delay in filing the Revised Return of Income. 5.1 Since, it is apparent from the reasons as discussed supra, the facts of the case do not fall under the purview of Board s Circular, the applicant s petition u/s 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay in filing the revised return of income for the Asst. Year 1997-98 is hereby rejected. Sd/- (NUTAN WODEYAR) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax Bengaluru-2, Bengaluru. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the terms of the to submit that the Respondent No.1 has wrongly invoked Clause 6 of the said Circular and has refused to condone the delay even though the case of the petitioner does not fall under the said Clause 6 of the Circular. 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 50 lakhs for any one assessment year. The applications/claims for amount exceeding ₹ 50 lakhs shall be considered by the Board. 3. No condonation application for claim of refund/loss shall been entertained beyond six years from the end of the assessment year for which such application/claim is made. This limit of six years shall be applicable to all authorities having powers to condone the delay as per the above prescribed monetary limits, including the Board. A condonation application should be disposed of within six months from the end of the month in which the application is received by the competent authority, as far as possible. 4. In a case where refund claim has arisen consequent to a Court order, the period for whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not assessable in the hands of any other person under any of the provisions of the Act. ii. No interest will be admissible on belated claim of refunds. iii. The refund has arisen as a result of excess tax deducted/collected at source and/or excess advance tax payment and/or excess payment of self-assessment tax as per the provisions of the Act. 7. In the case of an applicant who has made investment in 8% Savings (Taxable) Bonds, 2003 issued by Government of India opting for scheme of cumulative interest on maturity but has accounted interest earned on mercantile basis and the intermediary bank at the time of maturity has deducted tax at source on the entire amount of interest paid without apportioning the accrued interes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee. The issue being a debatable one, the revised return for that purpose could not have been filed by the assessee and Respondent No.1 cannot be faulted in rejecting such condonation of delay application. 8. The Clause 5(i) of the Circular No.9/15 clearly stipulates that the Authority concerned, in exercise of power under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, shall ensure that the income/loss declared and/or refund claimed is correct and genuine and also that it is the case of a genuine hardship on merits. When the claim of rejection under Section 80HHC and 80-IA is a debatable issue, unless the law is finally declared in favour of the assessee by the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court (supra), it cannot said to be inadvertent mistake on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
