9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 773X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opers and builders Pvt. Ltd [ 2017 (10) TMI 1285 - ITAT PUNE] and held that where divergent views are available and there is no direct decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, the view in favour of assessee has to be followed. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld CIT(A). The conclusions arrived at by the CIT(A) are, therefore, correct and admit no interference by us. We, approve and confirm the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. - ITA No. 115/SRT/2020, Cross Objection No. 11/SRT/2020 - - - Dated:- 14-11-2022 - Shri Pawan Singh, JM And Dr. A. L. Saini, AM For the Assessee : Shri Rasesh Shah, CA For the Revenue : Shri H.P. Meena, CIT(DR) ORDER PER DR. A. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. Brief facts of the issue in dispute are stated as under. The assessee before us is a private limited company and filed its return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 showing total income of Rs.1,09,32,327/- after claiming deduction of Rs.18,93,63,796/- under section 80IA of the Act on 26.12.2012. The case was selected for scrutiny and order under section 143(3) was passed on 16.03.2015 determining total income of Rs.1,09,32,327/-. Later on, assessee`s case was reopened under section 147 of the Income Tax Act after recording the reasons and a notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act, dated 19.05.2016 was issued and duly served to the assessee on 24.05.2016. Subsequently, notice under section 143(2) of the I.T. Act of the Income Tax Act, 196 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee is not eligible for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. Therefore, assessing officer noted that claim of the assessee is not correct and accordingly, the deduction of Rs.18,93,63,796/- claimed by the assessee u/s 80IA of I.T. Act was disallowed. 5. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who has allowed the deduction under section 80IA of the Act, observing as follows: Ground No. 2, 3, 4 and 5 are regarding deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. There is no dispute regarding whether or not appellant is eligible for the deduction. The dispute is regarding whether or not deduction is to be allowed when return of income was filed late by 26 days. AO has relied on certain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uance of time limit prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act, therefore stand taken by the assessing officer may be upheld. 8. On the other hand, Shri Rasesh Shah, Learned Counsel for the assessee defended the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and stated that although the different High Courts have given different verdicts on the issue under consideration, however some of the Judgments of High Courts are favoring the assessee. Therefore, ld Counsel pleaded that where divergent views are available and there is no direct decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, the view in favour of assessee has to be followed as per the Judgment of Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Vegetable Products, 88 ITR 192 (SC). 9. We h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate and there is minor delay of only 26 days. Under such circumstances deduction u/s 80IA cannot be denied as per section 80 AC as held in the following cases: 1. CIT vs. M/s Unitech Ltd.- Tax appeal no. 239 of2015[Del. HC] 2. M/s Anand Shelter developers and builders Pvt. Ltd. v ACIT- [1TA no. 1606/PUN/2015] 3. CIT v. Svenkataiah [ITA No. 114 of 2013] 11. We have gone through the order of ld CIT(A) and explanation provided by the ld Counsel and noted that there is minor delay of 26 days, in filing of return of income. The ld CIT(A) relied on the judgment of Hon`ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s Unitech Ltd (supra) and judgment of Coordinate Bench of ITAT Puna in the case of M/s Anand Shelter developers and b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
