9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 1508X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the assessee would have gained by filing the return of income with such a minor delay. It is also not the case of the revenue that the assessee is not entitled for carry forward of losses. We setaside the impugned order and restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to verify the fact that there was only a minor delay of 12 minutes and 31 seconds in filing of return of income as pleaded by the assessee. If so, the return filed by the assessee would be considered as a return filed u/s 139(1) and the benefit of carry-forward of losses would be allowed in accordance with law. Assessee appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed 12 minutes and 31 seconds past midnight and hence the filing date was reckoned as 01.11.2019. In the statement of facts filed during appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that it was trying to upload the return on the website of Income Tax Department for 21 hours on 31.10.2019. However, due to rush and technical snag on the website, the delay of 12 minutes and 31 second occurred and accordingly, the return was reckoned as belated return which ultimately led to denial of carry-forward of losses. There was no willful and mala-fide intent to make a default and to forgo the benefit of carry-forward of losses. The cause of delay was genuine. However, Ld. CIT(A) observed that as per CBDT Circular No. 9/2015 dated 09.06.2015, specifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of one day and held that the petitioner had successfully explained the delay in filing the return on 16.10.2010 instead of 15.10.2010. Further, it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner is not entitled to claim the carry forward loss under Section 139(3) of the Act. When the petitioner is entitled to claim the carry forward loss under Section 139(3) of the Income Tax Act, it cannot be stated that the delay in filing the return had occurred deliberately or on account of culpable negligence or on account of malafides. Further, the petitioner does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, they run a serious risk. Moreover, when the petitioner had satisfactorily explained the delay in filing the said return, the appro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
