9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 665X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s 80IC the assessee is eligible for 100% deduction for first five assessment years starting from the initial assessment year. The Chartered Accountant has included the assessment year under consideration as the 5th assessment year since no deduction was claimed in A. Y. 2009-10 and therefore the chartered accountant counted the eligible assessment years from A. Y. 2010-11. In our considered opinion this clearly shows the human error and cannot partake the colour of intentional or willful claim. In the case in hand the assessee was very much eligible for claim of deduction u/s 80 IC of the Act and due to the error in counting the eligible assessment years from the initial assessment year the error has crept for which it cannot be sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the eligible business is shown at ₹ 17008476/- and the deduction u/s 80 IC has been shown at 100% of the profits and gains mentioned here in above. 6. On the basis of this audit report the assessee filed its return of income and computed its taxable income accordingly. 7. The statement of computation of taxable income at normal tax is placed at page No.96 of the paper book and the computation of taxable income u/s 115 JC is placed at page No. 97 of the paper book. 8. However, during the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings and on going through the claim of deduction the assessee realized that the mistake has been crept in counting the eligible years of the claim of deduction u/s 80 IC of the Act. The assessee re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... countant and due to the inadvertent error the assessee had claimed deduction @ 100% and as soon as the mistake was realized, the assessee immediately corrected the claim and the taxes alongwith interest was also paid before the completion of the assessment proceedings. 14. Per contra the DR strongly supported the findings of the lower authorities and relied upon several decisions including Hon ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Dharmendra Textiles Processors 295 ITR 244 and Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Zoom Communication Private Limited 327 ITR 510. 15. The facts explained elsewhere clearly show that on the basis of the audit report the assessee claimed the deduction u/s 80 IC of the Act. There is no dispute that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t case the assessee had claimed income tax payment as expenditure which was not at all allowable under the Act. On such claim the Hon ble High Court had observed that if the return of income was not selected for scrutiny the assessee would have been allowed income tax as an expenditure. 18. However, in the case in hand the assessee was very much eligible for claim of deduction u/s 80 IC of the Act and due to the error in counting the eligible assessment years from the initial assessment year the error has crept for which it cannot be said that the assessee has willfully and intentionally claimed the deduction. 19. The Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case Deep Tools Pvt. Ltd. reported in 274 ITR 603 has held :- There is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
