9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 460X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (8th year of claim). 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the Appellant did not file the Audit Report in Form 10CCB in respect its Rudrapur unit before the due date of filing the return of income. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the due date of filing the Return of Income in the Appellant's case was 30th September, 2015 which was extended to 30th October, 2015. 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the due date for filing the return of income in the Appellants case is 30th November, 2015 in terms of section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that since the Appellant had filed the Audit Report in Form 10CCB before the due date of filing the Return of Income u/s. 139(1), the provisions of section 80AC were not attracted and the Appellant was entitled to deduction u/s 80IC. 6. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that since the Original Return of Income was filed within the due date prescribed under section 139(1), the Revised Return of Income filed under section 139(5) was a valid return. 7. The Commissioner of Inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons or specified domestic transactions. The learned CIT(A) further held that once the return is filed belatedly under section 139(4) of the Act, the same cannot be revised under section 139(5) of the Act. The learned CIT(A) also held that the assessee did not furnish the requisite report under section 80-IC of the Act along with the return of income as its accounts were not finalised. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) upheld the action of the AO in disallowing the deduction claimed under section 80-IC of the Act, as the assessee failed to comply with the provisions laid down in section 80-IC(7) read with section 80-IA(7) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income on 29/11/2015 declaring a total income of Rs. 22,12,09,220 after claiming a deduction of Rs. 1,35,62,893 under section 80-IC of the Act in respect of industrial undertaking located in Uttarakhand, as evident from the original return of income filed in Form ITR-6, forming part of the paper book from pages 2-36. As per the assessee, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of income was considered as 31/10/2015, therefore, at the threshold, it is pertinent to determine whether the return filed by the assessee on 29/11/2015 is beyond the due date of filing the return of income in the present case. As per section 139(1) of the Act, every person, being a company or a firm or a person other than a company or a firm, if his total income during the previous year exceeds the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income tax, shall on or before the due date furnish the return of his income in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such of the particulars as may be prescribed. The term "due date" is defined in Explanation-2 to section 139(1) of the Act as under:- "Explanation 2.-In this sub-section, "due date" means,- (a) where the assessee other than an assessee referred to in clause (aa) is- (i) a company; or (ii) a person (other than a company) whose accounts are required to be audited under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force; or (iii) a working partner of a firm whose accounts are required to be audited under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force, the 30th day ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thus, the original return filed by the assessee on 29/11/2015 is a valid return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. 11. As regards the finding of the learned CIT(A) pertaining to the revised return filed by the assessee on 29/03/2017, it is pertinent to note that vide intimation dated 26/11/2016 issued under section 143(1) of the Act, the original return filed by the assessee on 29/11/2015 was processed and thus the revised return, which was filed subsequently, was not under consideration. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the revised return filed by the assessee on 29/03/2017 was not the subject matter of appeal before the learned CIT(A) and thus the finding vide impugned order that the AO is justified in not accepting the return filed later on 29/03/2017 has no basis. In any case, as regards the reliance placed by the learned CIT(A) upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kumar Jagdish Chandra Sinha v/s CIT, 220 ITR 67 (SC), since the original return filed by the assessee has been found to be valid return under section 139(1) of the Act, therefore the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 12. Further, as the return of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
