9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 423X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Durga Rao, Judicial Member And Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member Appellant by : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate Respondent by : Ms. Sheila Parthasarathy, Addl. CIT ORDER PER V. DURGA RAO , JUDICIAL MEMBER : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai dated 30.01.2019 relevant to the assessment year 2012-13. 2. Facts are, in brief, that the assessee is in the business of manufacturing of medicines and drugs and filed its return of income for the assessment year 2012-13 on 30.03.2013 admitting NIL income. The case was selected for scrutiny by CASS and after following due procedure, the assessment under section 143(3) of the In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fit of ignorance of tax consultant was given to the assessee in AY 2010-11. 3. After committing the mistake once, if the same mistake is committed again in the next AY, it is unpardonable. 2.1 For the Assessment year 2012-13, the assessee has filed e-return of income on 30.03.2013, i.e., beyond the due date. Thus, the assessee company has failed to e-file the return of income or manual filing within the due date specified as per section 139(1) of the Act. Hence, it is clear that the facts of assessment year 2012-13 are similar to the facts for assessment year 2011-12. Accordingly, by following the Tribunal order in assessee s own case for the assessment year 2011-12, the Assessing Officer has held that the assessee is not eligibl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the AY.2011-12, we find that the assessee has filed return of income under e-mode on 12-12-2011, whereas the due date for filing return of income u/s.139(1) was 30-09-2011. Unlike AY.2010-11, the assessee has not filed manual return of income before the due date. No plausible reason has been given by the assessee for furnishing return of income after the elapse of due date. The only reason put forth is, the tax consultants of the assessee, M/s.Mathi Associates were not fully aware of the fact that the return has to be filed before 30th September of every year. We are unable to accept the reason given by the assessee for delay in filing of the return. AY.2010-11 was the first year in which, furnishing of return electronically under digit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the audit report was received by assessee on 02-09-2011. Despite the fact that the audit report was received well in time, the assessee/the tax consultants of the assessee were sluggish in filing return of income. It is a clear case of lackadaisical approach. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has further placed reliance on the decision of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Gemini Communication Ltd., Vs. CIT (supra). We find that the facts in the case of Gemini Communication Ltd., Vs. CIT (supra) are distinguishable from the facts in the instant case. The case on which the ld. Counsel for the assessee has placed reliance relates to AY.2008-09. In that AY, it was not mandatory to file return of income electronically. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0-11 and subsequent AYs electronically under digital signature. In view of amendment in Rule 12 of the Income Tax Rules, the above decision of the Co-ordinate Bench will not provide any support to the case of assessee. We find no merit in the submissions of the ld. Counsel for the assessee. Accordingly, the findings of the CIT(Appeals) in impugned order for AY.2011-12 are set aside and the appeal of the Revenue is allowed. In result, the appeal in ITA No.804/Mds/2014 is allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No.808/Mds/2014 is allowed. 6. By following the above decision of the Tribunal in assessee s own case for the assessment year 2011-12, the Assessing Officer has made disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80IC of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
