TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 674X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of income in ‘e-mode’ is not filed in time - the assessee is entitled to claim deduction u/s.80-IC of the Act, if otherwise it has complied with the conditions laid down u/s.80IC - the authorities below have not examined genuineness of the claim of the assessee u/s.80-IC – thus, the matter is remitted back to the AO for re-consideration of the claim of the assessee u/s.80-IC. - Decided in favor of assessee. For the AY 2011-12 - AY.2010-11 was the first year in which, furnishing of return electronically under digital signature was made mandatory. There were chances that the tax consultants may not be aware of the amended provisions in the first AY. The benefit of ignorance of tax consultants was given to the assessee in AY.2010-11. After ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f manufacturing of drugs and medicines. For the AY.2010-11, the assessee had filed manual return of income on 09-09-2010. Subsequently, the assessee filed return of income in electronic mode (e-mode) on 25-01-2011. The assessee had claimed deduction u/s.80-IC of the Act. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s. 143(2) was issued to the assessee on 29-08-2011. The Assessing Officer vide order dt.22-03-2013 held that, since the assessee has failed to file return of income in e-mode within the due date specified u/s.139(1), the assessee is not eligible to claim deduction u/s.80-IC. The Assessing Officer accordingly dis-allowed deduction of ₹ 61,93,667/- claimed by the assessee u/s.80-IC of the Act. Similarly, fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... return was 30-09-2010. Thus, the assessee had complied with the substantive provisions of the Act in filing of the return. Electronic filing of return was made mandatory from the AY.2010- 11. The accountants of the assessee were not aware that the return has to be filed in e-mode. As soon as it came to the knowledge of the accountants, the return was furnished in e-mode on 25-01-2011. As regard AY.2011-12, the ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that the e-return of income was filed on 12-12-2011. The return was filed before the expiry of time allowed u/s.139(4) of the Act. In order to support his submissions, the ld.Counsel placed reliance on the following case laws: i. ITO Vs. S.Venkataiah reported as 52 SOT 437 (Hyd); ii. ACIT Vs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nishing of return in electronic mode was made mandatory. The accountants/tax consultants of the assessee may be due to oversight missed the amendment in the Rules. Since manual return of income was furnished well before the due date, the assessee has complied with the substantive provisions of the Act. In these circumstances, deduction u/s.80-IC cannot be denied for the reason that return of income in e-mode is not filed in time. We are of considered opinion that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction u/s.80-IC of the Act, if otherwise it has complied with the conditions laid down u/s.80IC. A perusal of the assessment order and the impugned order shows that the authorities below have not examined genuineness of the claim of the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounsel for the assessee in support of his contentions has placed reliance on the decision of the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs. S.Venkataiah (supra). In the said case, the delay in filing of the return was explained. The computer in which the accounts were prepared got corrupted due to virus. Despite best efforts, the data could not be retrieved in time. The entire data had to be re-entered and it was there after that the accounts were finalized and statutory audit was done. Thus, there was delay of seventy four days in filing of the return of income. The delay was beyond the control of assessee. It was the case of supervening impossibility. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the co-ordinate bench ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t or Rules, there is a mandatory provision that the return must be filed only electronically. This compulsion has been made as a result of the direction issued by the CBDT. As rightly argued by the learned counsel, the direction of the CBDT cannot go beyond the Act and Rules. It cannot overtake the apparent words of the statute. Therefore, what we can hold is that filing of return electronically is a directory provision and if the return is filed manually on or before due date, such return cannot be ignored. The maximum the Assessing Officer can ask the assessee is to file the return again electronically, so that the technicality of processing is satisfied. This is only for the administrative convenience of the Income-tax department . Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
