Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

P. Bhavani and R. Jayalakshmi L/R R. Kumar Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle I (5) , Chennai

2015 (8) TMI 1147 - ITAT CHENNAI

Entitlement to deduction under section 80-IB - Held that:- Since the assessee had filed the return of income belatedly on September 20, 2010, the assessee was not entitled for deduction under section 80-IB of the Act. The assessee has made a plea before us, that there was an error in filling e-return of income which is too technical is to be ignored. In our opinion, this was considered by the Tribunal on the earlier occasion and the Tribunal had given the findings in the assessee's own case for .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tly rejected by the Assessing Officer. The assessee had preferred no such claim in its return at all. This seems to be the right decision taken by the Assessing Officer. - Decided against assessee. - I.T.A. No.82 /Mds/2015, I.T.A. No.83 /Mds/2015 - Dated:- 1-5-2015 - SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI & SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri. G. Gopalan, Retd JCIT & Shri. T. Vasu, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri. S. Dasgupta, IRS, JCIT ORDER Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member).- These two .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nce the issue is common in nature in both appeals, we consider the facts as narrated in I. T. A. No. 82/Mds/2015 for adjudication. 3. In this case, the original return of income in ITR†4 for the assessment year 2010-11 was filed electronically by the assessee on September 20, 2010 vide e-filing acknowledgment No. 156323040200910. The return was processed under section 143(1) by the CPC, Bangalore on March 12, 2011, whereby in the Income-tax computation, the deduction under Chapter V .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

2012, allowed the appeal of the assessee. The Department preferred an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal vide its order in I. T. A No. 1997/Mds/2012 dated February 7, 2013 dismissed the appeal of the Revenue after it was pointed out that vide order under section 154 dated October 16, 2012, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-I, Chennai rectified his order dated August 3, 2012 and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. An o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

presentative submitted that for the assessment year 2010-11, the assessee's turnover in respect of 80-IB project is ₹ 7,08,79,942. Statutory audit report in Forms 3CB and 3CD were obtained from auditor Thiru. V. Kalyanakrishnan, partner, M/s. Suchitra and Co., Membership No. 24338, vide report dated September 20, 2010. The last date for filing of return for the assessment year is September 30, 2010, in view of the statutory audit conducted under section 44AB. Accordingly, return of inc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

herefore, the last date for filing the return of income is September 30, 2010, the return of income is filed on September 24, 2010, which is well within the time limit under section 139(1). The Department counsel argued that the assessee did not claim deduction under section 80-IB(10) under Chapter VI-A in the computation of total income. As revealed from the copy of electronically filed e-return in Form ITR-4 downloaded from the Departmental website www.incometaxindiaefiling.gov.in the deductio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as under : Deduction under Chapter VI-A (S of Schedule VI-A . . .) ₹ 1,00,000. In column 16 of page 18, the e-filing acknowledgment No. is given, which tallies with the copy of the e-filed return purportedly filed by the assessee. Perusal of the downloaded version of the e-filed return shows that the purported deduction under section 80-IB of ₹ 3,83,50,966 was never claimed by the assessee. Moreover, the asses see herself has declared in her return of income that she was not liable .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

urn of income for individuals who are not required to get their accounts audited for the relevant assessment year was August 4, 2010. The return of income was filed only on September 20, 2010. In this respect, he drew our attention to the provisions of section 80AC of the Income-tax Act,1961 as are applicable to the facts of the case. 6. In rejoinder, the authorised representative for the assessee submitted that the learned Departmental representative produced before the Bench four computer shee .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t a claim under Chapter VI is evident in several places in the return of income as could be seen from the downloaded return of income. 7. We have heard both parties and perused the material on record. In this case, filing of return of income as seen from the records the return in Form ITR-4 reads as under : 8. It was mentioned that the assessee is not liable to maintain accounts as per section 44AA of the Act. As seen from the above, the assessee filled column regarding applicability of provisio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n to file her return of income within due date by virtue of section 139(1) of the Act for the assessment year under consideration. In this case there is extended due date for filing the return of income for "individual" as the assessee is not required to get her accounts audited for the impugned assessment year and due date for filing the return of income was August 4, 2010. The assessee has filed return of income on September 20, 2010. The assessee has been hit by the provisions of se .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on or before the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139. In the instant case, the extended due date was August 4, 2010 and the return was filed belatedly on _September 20, 2010. As per the provisions of section 80AC, the assessee, in order to avail of the benefits of deduction under section Chapter VI-A is required, as per law, to file the return of income within the due date. This has not been done and as such, the assessee is not eligible to avail of the benefit of deduction .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. A. No. 1997/Mds/2012 which is staring at the assessee wherein it observed that reading of the print out of the e-return of the assessee clearly show that there was an attempt to mislead the Department. The assessee after working out tax dues, showed taxes paid as 1,38,84,356 when the total even as per the assessee's figure itself ought to have been more. We find that the Tribunal in the first round of litigation in I. T. A. No. 1997/Mds/2012, dated February 7, 2013 observed as under : &quo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r Chapter VI-A, the assessee gave the figure of ₹ 1,00,000. However, in the column showing the total income of ₹ 5,13,62,429 was shown. A reading of the print out of the e-return of the assessee clearly show that there was an attempt to mislead the Department. The assessee after working out tax dues, showed taxes paid as ₹ 1,38,84,356 when the total even as per the assessee's figure itself ought to have been more. In such a situation, we cannot say that the application for .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e e-return filed by the asses see. In any case, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on October 16, 2012 realising his mistake, rectified the earlier appellate order, dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee against the rejection of petition by the Assessing Officer. Thus, as the matter stands now, there is no order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated August 3, 2012 in the eyes of law. Hence the appeal filed by the Revenue has become infructuous. Since the cross-objection of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

upported by the earlier order of the Tribunal which has reached finality. At this stage, we are not in a position to take a different view than the earlier one. Accordingly, in our opinion, the assessee cannot be granted deduction under section 80-IB of the Act. Further, we observe that if there is technical error caused while downloading the e-return, the assessee could have brought to the knowledge of the competent authority at relevant point of time which the assessee failed to do and tried t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version