Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 138 - AT - Income TaxCondonation of delay - delay for filing by 32 days - application seeking condonation of delay has been filed stating that the delay was unintentional since the management was tied up with the compliance in new GST regime and the staff who was handed over the work of preparing the appeal and filing it, fell sick. A Duly sworn affidavit of the Director of the assessee company, stating the aforesaid facts on oath was also filed before us - HELD THAT:- The affidavit which brings out the reason for the delay merely states that the staff responsible for filing the appeal fell sick not once but twice. There is no mention of the name of the concerned staff. There is no evidence of his having fallen sick except for that the Director has stated the said fact on oath. It appears that there is total lack of sincerity on the part of the assessee regarding such serious matters, as filing appeals, which is evident from the fact that it had left all the work relating to the filing of the appeal to some of its staff which time and again fell sick and no conscious and deliberate effort was even made by the assessee to find out whether the appeal was filed or not. It was only when the Department raised a demand that the assessee woke and filed the appeal. But considering the smallness of the delay, the reasons stated on oath by the Director of the assessee company and in the interest of justice we condone the delay Deduction u/s 80IC denied - not adhering the provision of section 80AC - return filed in the impugned case was beyond the due date as specified u/s 139(1) - HELD THAT:- It has not been disputed at any stage that the law mandates the filing of return claiming the impugned deduction by the due date of filing of return as per section 139(1) of the Act. It is also an admitted fact that the return filed in the impugned case was beyond the due date as specified u/s 139(1) of the Act. The CIT(A), we find, has referred to decision of Saffire Garments [2012 (12) TMI 193 - ITAT RAJKOT], the ITAT Kolkatta Bench in the case of Singhal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. [2019 (5) TMI 1023 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] . The ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of Lakshmi Energy & Foods Limited [2015 (10) TMI 986 - ITAT CHANDIGARH] and other decisions of the ITAT, directly on the issue while upholding the disallowance. No contrary decision has been brought to our notice by way of any written submission filed or otherwise. In view of the same, we hold, that the ratio laid down in the said decisions has been rightly applied by the CIT(A) in the present case, disallowing the claim of deduction u/s 80IC of the Act - Appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
|