TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 950X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the various benches of the ITAT on whether 80AC was mandatory. Consequently, the ITAT was not in error in reversing the order of the CIT as far as the question of exercising jurisdiction under Section 263of the Act was concerned. No substantial question of law arises on the said issue. It is clarified that the question whether the requirement under Section 80AC of the Act is mandatory is left open for consideration in an appropriate case. - Decided against revenue. - ITA 239/2015 & CM No. 6678/2015 - - - Dated:- 5-10-2015 - S. Muralidhar And Vibhu Bakhru, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Rohit Madan, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr Salil Aggarwal and Mr Ravi Pratap Mall, Advocates ORDER CM No. 6678/2015 (Delay in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cisions was applied, the ITAT concluded that there was no justification for CIT to have invoked the jurisdiction Section 263 of the Act. 7. Before this Court Mr Rohit Madan, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue has placed reliance on the decision dated 27th August 2012 of the Uttarakhand High Court in ITA No. 07/2012 (Umesh Chandra Dalakoti v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax) as well as of the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Shelcon Properties (P) Ltd. [2015] 370 ITR 305 (Cal) both of which have held the provision under Section 80AC of the Act to be mandatory. He has also referred to the decisions of the ITAT Special Bench in Saffire Garments v. ITO 20 ITR (Trib) 623, of the ITAT Madras Bench in 1219-1223/MDS/2012 (ACIT v. Shri V. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... B (5) of the Act which requires the filing of a report of an accountant along with the return was mandatory. Neither decision was directly on question whether the time limit for filing the return in terms of Section 80AC read with Section 139 (1) of the Act was mandatory. Although the decision of the A.P. High Court in CIT v. Sri S Venkataiah (supra) concerned this very issue, it was one declining to frame a question of law thereby affirming the order of the ITAT. It was a short order in the facts of the case where the Assessee appears to have shown reasonable cause for filing the return of income belatedly and that it was beyond the control of the Assessee. On the other hand, the decisions of the Uttarakhand High Court in Umesh Chandra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
