9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 607X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of non-filing of ITR-V within prescribed period of 120 days. Therefore, the intimation dated 27.03.2017 issued by CPC on the basis of said return was also invalid. Since the assessee had already filed 2nd return on 04.03.2017 which was a valid return u/s 139(4) and which was available in the departmental database on 27.03.2017 at the time of processing u/s 143(1), the CPC ought to have taken into consideration the 2nd return and subject it to processing. Therefore, we set aside the order passed u/s 154 and 143(1) and remand the matter to the record of the AO to verify and examine the relevant record and then consider the claim of assessee u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act. Before passing order, the assessee shall be given an appropriate opp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rcular No. 03/2009 dated 21.05.2009, after e-filing of return, the assessee was required to submit a print-out of ITR-V to CPC, Bangalore within 30 days. The CBDT Circular makes it clear in the very same para 9 that In case, Form ITR-V is furnished after the above mentioned period, it will be deemed that the return in respect of which the Form ITR-V has been filed, was never furnished and it shall be incumbent on the assessee to electronically re-transmit the data and follow it up by submitting the new Form ITR-V within 30 days. The time-limit of 30 days was, however, extended to 120 days vide CBDT Press Release dated 27.01.2010. Thus, the assessee was required to submit ITR-V by 07.06.2016 (08.02.2016 + 120 days). But the assessee file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turn, processed same and issued intimation u/s 143(1) dated 27.03.2017. Ld. AR submitted that when the 1st return was invalid, the CPC had no authority to process the same u/s 143(1). Therefore, the intimation u/s 143(1) issued by CPC was invalid. This proposition is also fortified by the decision of ITAT, Cuttack in Rajdhani Institute of Information Technology Vs. CIT(A), NFAC, ITA No. 133/CTK/2022 order dated 14.12.2022 where it was held thus: 5. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the communication dated 21.08.2015 issued to the assessee clearly shows that the CPC has issued the notice u/s 139(9) of the Act intimating defects in the return. In the notice, it has been categorically mentioned that if the defects ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s 139(4) could be submitted upto 1 year from end of the relevant assessment-year. Therefore, the assessee could very well file a belated return u/s 139(4) upto 31.03.2017 for AY 2015-16. Hence, the 2nd return filed on 04.03.2017 was a belated return u/s 139(4) but not a revised return u/s 139(5). Therefore, the assessee s bona fide mistake of selecting revised return instead of belated return u/s 139(4) must be excused. (ii) The second error is such that the assessee has correctly filled the details of the project run by it eligible for exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) under the space titled PERSONAL INFORMATION on Page No. 1 of the return, as under: Sl. No. Name of the project/institution ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was fair enough in leaving the matter for adjudication as per judicious wisdom of Bench. 7. We have considered submissions of both sides and also perused the documents held on record including the orders of lower-authorities as well as the documents filed in the Paper-Book to which our attention has been drawn. We have already mentioned the undisputed factual aspects and submissions of parties in foregoing paragraphs, hence we would not like to repeat the same for the sake of brevity. We only suffice to mention that the 1st return filed by assessee was an invalid return because of non-filing of ITR-V within prescribed period of 120 days. Therefore, the intimation dated 27.03.2017 issued by CPC on the basis of said return was also invalid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
