TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 40X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stantial question of justice involved technicalities should be ignored. Claim of the assessee cannot be denied on technicalities when the assessee is legally otherwise entitled for deduction - Decided in favor of assessee. - IT Appeal NO. 984 (HYD.) of 2011 - - - Dated:- 31-5-2012 - Chandra Poojari And Asha Vijayaraghavan , JJ. ORDER Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-VI, Hyderabad dated 7.4.2011 for assessment year 2008-09. 2 . The Revenue raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous in law and on facts. 2. The CIT(A) erred in allowing the additional evidence without giving a reasonable opportunity to the AO to examine the evidence which is in contravention to the Rule 46A(3) of IT Rules, 1962. 3. The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the AO had rightly disallowed the deduction claimed u/s. 80IC following the provisions of section 80AC. 4. The CIT(A) ought to have held that the explanation offered by the assessee was nothing but an after though and devoid of any merit as no effort was made by him to take recourse u/s. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioned that due to technical problems in computer system, the return of income was filed on 23/12/2008, with a delay of 74 days. The assessee had submitted before the Assessing Officer that while the assessee was preparing the Balance Sheet and Profit Loss Account for the relevant financial year, suddenly some data files in the computer got corrupted due to viruses and in spite of continuous efforts by the computer technical persons to retrieve the data in time for filing the income tax return, problems persisted in computer systems. It was further submitted that even after trying for retrieval of the data for four days, the required data could not be retrieved and that the backed-up data were available only up to 31st January 2008 in the C.D. Therefore, the entire data for the two months period, February March 2008, had to be entered into the computer system again. Subsequently, the data were again audited by the Statutory Auditors for finalizing the accounts. It was submitted that since the assessee has multi location sales points through C F agents in 12 States in India and data pertaining to transactions with these sales points consist of third party claims for stock return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 23/12/2008 and it was well within the time allowed and as such the provisions of Sec 80AC are not applicable for the present case. 10. The Assessing Officer had in the assessment order stated that all the decisions relied by the assessee are relatable to the claim of the deduction u/s. 10B, 11, 80P allowance of business loss etc. and further in all the said Judgements, the appellate authorities have taken a lenient view that in case of genuine hardship which prevented the assessee from timely filing the return u/s. 139(1) was only directory and not mandatory. In the present case the reasons stated by the assessee were some technical problems in the computers owing to which the return could not be filed in time, was very vague and devoid of any merit and that the assessee had not produced any documentary evidence to substantiate his claim and in the absence of any corroborative evidence, the reasons cited by the assessee cannot be construed as genuine hardship which prevented him from filing the Return of Income in time. Citing the above reasons the Assessing Officer has rejected the claim of the assessee made u/s. 80IC of ₹ 4,55,69,014/- and completed the assessm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confirmed by the statutory auditor vide his letter dated 20.3.2011. Being so, in our opinion there is a reasonable cause for filing the return of income belatedly and this is beyond the control of the assessee. When the substantial question of justice involved technicalities should be ignored. Further, we are supported by the order of the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 1231 1199/Hyd/2010 in the case of DCIT v. M/s. Vega Conveyors Automation Ltd. order dated 31st December, 2010 wherein in para 5 of the order the Tribunal held as follows: 5. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities, and other material available on record, including the case-law relied upon by the parties. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee in the present case has filed the audit report in Form 10CCB during the course of reassessment proceedings. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the Assessing Officer was justified in disallowing the assessee's claim for deduction under S. 80IB on the ground that the audit report in Form 10CCB was not filed along with the return of income; or whether the CIT(A) was correct in proceeding on the basis of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
