9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 138X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seeking adjournment was also filed before us. It appears, therefore, that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal. The appeal was, therefore, proceed to be decided on merits on the basis of material before us. 3. The appeal has been delayed for filing by 32 days. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed stating that the delay was unintentional since the management was tied up with the compliance in new GST regime and the staff who was handed over the work of preparing the appeal and filing it, fell sick. A Duly sworn affidavit of the Director of the assessee company, stating the aforesaid facts on oath was also filed before us. The contents of the affidavit are as under: "1. That, I the deponent, the Director of the Company fully authorized to swear this affidavit as I am fully competent and aware of all the events of the matter. 2. That, I the deponent states that the delay in filing of appeal is just because of miscommunication. Firstly, the appeal matter looked by the accountant who all of sudden fell sick and he returned back on 10th of October, 2017, he has been asked about the pending matters then he apprised that appeal has not been fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as justified in not appreciating the reasons for delay on account of human error initially caused by system and thereafter by typographical mistake and for its delay a condonation letter were sent to Hon'ble Board which is still pending." 6. As is evident from the above, the sole issue relates to denial of claim of deduction u/s 80IC of the Act amounting to Rs. 75,17,116/-. A perusal of the facts as noted in the order of the CIT(A) at para 3.1 of his order reveal that the Assessing Officer (AO) had denied this claim of deduction of the assessee for the reason that the assessee had failed to comply with the necessary condition mandated by law for claiming the said deduction, being the filing of return by due date as per section 139(1) of the Act. The AO had noted that the return filed by the assessee for the year was delayed, having been filed on 9.11.2013 while the due date for the same was 30.9.2012. Referring to the provisions of section 80AC of the Act which mandated the filing of the return on or before the time limit u/s 139(1) of the Act for claiming the deduction, the AO disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee. 7. The matter was carried in appeal before the CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome on or before the due date. Accordingly, applying proviso to section 10A(1A), Assessing Officer denied deduction under section 10A. On appeal by the assessee, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of Assessing Officer. On further appeal by the assessee. the Tribunal held provisions of the proviso to subsection (1A) of section 10A to be merely directory and not mandatory and, therefore, on that basis held that even if return of income was not filed within the time-limit prescribed by section 139(1), the assessee could not be denied deduction under section 10A. Further Instant Special Bench of the Tribunal was constituted to consider the following questions in following manner it is being reproduced hereunder: 15. On the aforementioned facts, the Special Bench held as under- Scheme of the Act with regard to filing of returns in order to decide the issue, the whole scheme of the Act needs to be considered. The assessee is required to file the return of income within the prescribed time as per the provisions of section 139(1). This provision of section 139(1) is applicable to all companies and firms irrespective of the fact as to whether they are earning taxable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... If, we consider the facts of the case in hand in the light of the decisions mentioned hereinabove, we find similarity in the facts of the present case in hand. Therefore, we have no other option but to follow the decisions of the Special Bench and the Co-ordinate Bench (supra). In fact, this was communicated to the assessee when the appeal was heard. The reasons mentioned by the AR are of no relevance. As such, we find no substance in the order me Id. CIT(A) as the issue was squarely covered against the assessee as discussed above. Thus, in our considered view the appeal filed by Revenue is allowed." 3.3.2 The similar issue has also been discussed by the honourable Tribunal in the case of Anoli Holdings Private Limited vs Department of income tax vide order dated 3 August 2016, and the decision has been taken in favor of revenue after considering the facts. 3.7 The decision of Amritsar Bench of the Tribunal in case of Balkishan Vs. ITO (supra] is also on similar Hues ", wherein it was clearly observed that provisions of section 80AC are mandatory Head note reads as under "Sec 80IB r.w.s. 80AC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 deduction - profits and gains from industrial undertakin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
