9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 812X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal is completely misplaced. During the hearing, DR supported the conclusion reached by the lower authorities by placing reliance upon the decision of Wipro Ltd. [ 2022 (7) TMI 560 - SUPREME COURT] . From the perusal of the aforesaid decision passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court, we find that compliance with the provisions of section 10B(8) of the Act was under consideration before the Hon ble Supreme Court, which specifically requires furnishing of declaration to the AO before the due date of furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 of the Act. The provisions of section 80-IA(7) of the Act neither qualify the term return of income nor mention the specific provision of section 139 of the Act. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Wipro Ltd (supra) does not support the case of the Revenue. Amendment to section 80-IA(7) of the Act, by the Finance Act, 2020, whereby the time period for audit and furnishing the audit report in Form no.10CCB has been laid down is made effective from 01/04/2020, and therefore, cannot apply to the assessment year under consideration. Since the audit report in Form no.10CC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, [2022] 448 ITR 518 (SC). Accordingly, respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court, ground no.2 raised in assessee s appeal is dismissed. 4. The issue arising in ground no.1, raised in assessee s appeal, pertains to the disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80-IA of the Act. 5. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the record, are: For the year under consideration, the assessee filed its original return of income on 28/11/2019 declaring a total income of Rs. 22,53,47,320, after claiming a deduction of Rs. 75,94,111 under section 80-IA of the Act. The original return of income filed by the assessee was processed vide intimation dated 05/06/2020 issued under section 143(1) of the Act by the Centralised Processing Centre, Bengaluru, ( CPC ) determining the total income at Rs. 153,22,19,350 after disallowing the deduction claimed under section 80-IA of the Act on the basis that the assessee has failed to file Form no.10CCB within the due date. Thereafter, the rectification application filed by the assessee against the aforesaid intimation w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing commenced its operation on 24/12/2019 and the initial year of assessment from when the deduction is claimed by the assessee is the assessment year 2013-14. From the record, it is also evident that the aforesaid audit report is also on the records of the Department, as in para-5.4 of the impugned order, the learned CIT(A) upon verification of the database stated that the said report was filed online on 11/06/2020. Therefore, there is no dispute amongst the parties that the assessee filed the audit report in Form no.10CCB on 11/06/2020. After filing the audit report, the assessee filed the revised return of income on 22/07/2020, again claiming deduction under section 80-IA of the Act. From the perusal of the revised return of income filed by the assessee, forming part of the paper book from pages 160-250, we find that under the heading Audit Details , the assessee specifically mentioned the date of furnishing of the audit report as required under section 80-IA of the Act. Further, on page 224, we find that the assessee claimed the deduction of Rs. 75,94,111 in respect of the undertaking as referred to in section 80-IA(4)(iv) of the Act. It is further evident from the record that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the original return of income filed by the assessee on 28/11/2019 was a valid return of income and was filed before the due date, as noted in the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act, i.e. 30/11/2019. Such being the facts of the present case, it also cannot be disputed that the revised return of income filed by the assessee on 22/07/2020 was also a valid return and was filed within the due date, i.e. at any time before the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier, as per section 139(5) of the Act. Thus, when the provisions of section 80-IA(7) of the Act do not qualify the term return of income , therefore we find no merits in the findings of the learned CIT(A) that the CPC is empowered to make the adjustment under section 143(1) of the Act as the audit report in Form no.10CCB was not filed by the assessee along with its original return of income filed under section 139(1) of the Act. Further, it is evident from the record that the assessee filed the audit report in Form no.10CCB on 11/06/2020 and made the reference to the same while filing its revised return of income on 22/07/2020, which has also been co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee however read out the relevant provision of Section 80AC of the Act and the relevant reads as under: 80AC : Where in computing the total income of an Assessee of the previous year relevant to the Assessment Year commencing on the 1st day of April, 2006 or any subsequent assessment year, any deduction is admissible under section 80IA or section 80IAB or section 80IB or section 80IC (or section 80ID or section 80IE), no such deduction shall be allowed to him unless he furnishes a return of his income for such assessment year on or before the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139. The learned Counsel for the Assessee stated that the precondition of Section 80C of the Act is furnished on the return of income of the Assessee on or before the due date specified under sub-section 1 of Section 139 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the Assessee relied upon the various decisions which are as under: [1] ACIT, Company Circle-I(2), Coimbatore Vs. M/s. Precot Meridian Limited, Coimbatore in ITA No.1214/Mds/2012 dated 29 th April, 2013. [2] DCIT-5(2)(1), Mumbai Vs. M/s. JSW Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai in ITA No.3708 3709/Mum/2018 dated 08.11.2019. [3] DCIT 15(3) Vs. Ka ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ithin the due date, then the revised return filed, thereafter before completion of assessment proceedings is to be considered by the Assessing Officer, because the Act has been given opportunity to the Assessee to file revised return u/s. 139(4) for removal of any defect or any omissions in the original return and that if both the returns were filed within time limit prescribed under the law, then conditions prescribed u/s. 80IB(1)) of the I.T.Act, 1961 are fulfilled. In this case, the Assessee has filed a return u/s. 139(1) within due date specified date, but the claim for deduction u/s. 80IA, in respect of second unit was not made, however a revised return was filed u/s. 139(5) within due date specified under the Act and made additional claim for deduction, in respect of second unit. When original return was filed within due date specified u/s. 139(1), then any revised return filed within the due date specified u/s. 139(5) to rectify any mistakes or omissions or wrong statements made in the return already filed u/s. 139(1), then the revised return takes, the nature of the original return filed within due date specified u/s. 139(1) and consequently, the Assessee fulfills the condi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee online on 11/06/2020. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the reliance placed by the learned CIT(A) on the aforesaid decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal is completely misplaced. 10. During the hearing, the learned Departmental Representative supported the conclusion reached by the lower authorities by placing reliance upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in PCIT v/s Wipro Ltd., [2022] 446 ITR 1 (SC). From the perusal of the aforesaid decision passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court, we find that compliance with the provisions of section 10B(8) of the Act was under consideration before the Hon ble Supreme Court, which specifically requires furnishing of declaration to the Assessing Officer before the due date of furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 of the Act. However, as noted above, the provisions of section 80-IA(7) of the Act neither qualify the term return of income nor mention the specific provision of section 139 of the Act. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Wipro Ltd (supra) does not support the case of the Revenue. 11. Before concluding, we may also not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
