9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 678X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal ITR, Form No. 10 B and 10. AR mentioned in his written submission at page 10, para 1.3 14 that however, the income tax return was filed without digital signature and due to oversight and unavoidable circumstances the manual copy of ITR verification could not be sent at CPC, Bangalore within 120 days of submission of ITR. 14 Hence, subsequently assessee again filed revised return immediately after COVID restrictions were lifted, declaring the same income as shown in original return and verified the same through digital signature. The copy of revised return filed on 05-06-2020 is available - Bench noted that the CPC without going into the facts that Original Income Tax Return, Form 10 and Form 10B were submitted before filing of due date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in confirming the disallowance on the set apart fund of Rs. 15.00 lacs u/s 11(2) and 11(5) of the Act on account of delay in filing of income tax return made by the AO. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the lower authorities erred in confirming and not considering the original return filed on 31-10-2019 as a valid return. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. Addl. CIT(A) erred in confirming and not giving the benefit of late filing of Acknowledgement as per relaxation scheme for delay verifying. 2.1 At the outset of the hearing, the Bench noted that there is delay of 18 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee has filed a condonation applicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee in the present appeal relates to disallowing the set apart fund under section 11 (2) and section 11(5) of the Act on account of delay in filing of income tax return. 3.2 Apropos grounds of appeal of the assessee, it is noted that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under:- Decision: 5.1 The statement of facts, grounds of appeal, the order appealed against and the submissions made by the appellant have been thoroughly examined. The central issue for adjudication among all the grounds of appeal raised pertains to the sole issue of denying the benefit of Section 11 of the Act while processing the return of Income under section 143(1) of the Act. 5.2. It is noted that while processing the return of Income, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lause (a) of the said sub-section in respect of such income is not furnished on or before the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139 for furnishing the return of income for the previous year; or (ii) the return of income for the previous year is not furnished by such person on or before the due date specified under subsection (1) of section 139 for furnishing the return of income for the said previous year. 5.5 In the present case, the assessment year in question is AY 2019-20, and the appellant filed the income tax return on June 05, 2020, which is beyond the due date of filing the retum, i.e., September 30, 2019, as per Section 139(1) of the Act. In accordance with the provisions of Section 13(9) of the Act, the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bipin Biharidas Charitable Foundation vsCIT(E) (ITA No. 1091/Ahd. 2023 decided on 21-02-2023 ITAT D Bench of Ahemdabad. 2. M/s. Electronics Controls Power Systen Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT (ITA No. 914/Bang/2016 decided on03-11-2017 ITAT A Bench Bangalore). 3. M/s. Amsteel Castings Pvt. Ltd. vs Jt. CIT (OSD) and Vice Versa (ITA No. 967/Mds/2013, ITA No. 1194/Mds/2023 dated 05-08-2013 [2013(8) TMI 1074 ITAT Chennai) 4. M/s. Crawford Baleylet Co. vs Union of India Ors. (W.P. No. 2004 of 2011 [2011(12) TMI 64- Bombay High Court 343 ITR 232) 3.4 On the contrary, the ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities and also relied upon the decision of Hon ble Kerala High Court in the case of Nileshwar Rangekallu Chethu Vyavassaya Thozhilal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iginal Income Tax Return, Form 10 and Form 10B were submitted before filing of due date and merely filing of the revised ITR after the due date disallowed the set apart fund u/s 11(2) and 11(5) of the Act and thus raised demand of Rs. 2,91,070/- From the above facts of the case, the Bench is of the view that CPC grossly erred in not considering the genuine hardship with the assessee and without considering the submissions dated 02-07- 2020 made by the assessee in response to notice issued under section 143(1) and without going into the fact has denied the benefit to the assessee under section 11(2) of the Act. The Bench has also gone through the CBDT Circular No. 3/2020 dated 13.7.2020 and after going through the said circular issued by CBD ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
