9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (9) TMI 1005 - AT - Income TaxClaim u/s 10B declined - delay on part of the assessee in filing the return under section 139(1) - Held that - The substantive ground for rejecting assessee s deduction claim is only that of delay of one month(supra) in filing return we are of the opinion that the assessee has successfully explained the delay. Accordingly we hold that the assessee has filed a valid return under section 139(1) of the Act . Accordingly the assessee is also held entitled for getting the deduction under section 10B of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Delay in filing return under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Claim of deduction under section 10B of the Act. 3. Treatment of VKGUY scheme claim. 4. Concealment of income. 5. Applicability of case laws in justifying the delay in filing return. Issue 1: Delay in filing return under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The case involved a delay in filing the return by the assessee, which was attributed to system failure in uploading the electronic return. The Assessing Officer considered the delay as a violation of the provisions of section 139(1). However, the Tribunal, after considering relevant case laws, held that the provision of the due date under section 139(1) is directory, not mandatory. Consequently, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation for the delay and deemed the return validly filed under section 139(1). Issue 2: Claim of deduction under section 10B of the Act: The assessee, an Export Oriented Undertaking (EOU), had been availing tax concession under section 10B since the Assessment Year 1999-2000. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) disallowed the deduction claim solely based on the delay in filing the return. However, the Tribunal found that the delay was adequately explained by the assessee and held that the assessee was entitled to claim the deduction under section 10B of the Act for the relevant Assessment Year. Issue 3: Treatment of VKGUY scheme claim: The Assessing Officer concluded that the assessee could claim the VKGUY scheme only after giving up the claim under section 10B. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's conduct was considered unnatural and amounted to concealment by the Assessing Officer. However, the Tribunal's decision to allow the deduction under section 10B rendered this issue inconsequential. Issue 4: Concealment of income: The Assessing Officer added an amount to the assessee's returned income due to disallowed deduction under section 10B, considering it as concealment. The Tribunal's decision to allow the deduction under section 10B negated the Assessing Officer's finding of concealment, thereby resolving this issue in favor of the assessee. Issue 5: Applicability of case laws in justifying the delay in filing return: The assessee cited various case laws to justify the delay in filing the return, emphasizing technical difficulties faced in electronic filing. The Revenue argued that the facts in the cited cases were distinguishable and supported the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal, after considering the case laws and factual circumstances, upheld the assessee's explanation for the delay and allowed the appeal, emphasizing the directory nature of the due date provision under section 139(1). In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai, in the cited judgment, addressed multiple issues related to the delay in filing the return, the claim of deduction under section 10B, treatment of VKGUY scheme claim, concealment of income, and the applicability of case laws. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the deduction under section 10B and rejecting the Assessing Officer's findings of concealment and disallowance. The decision highlighted the directory nature of the due date provision under section 139(1) and emphasized the assessee's valid explanation for the delay in filing the return.
|
