9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 1005X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xport of Gherkins ; who e-filed its return on 31.12.08 followed by ITR-V on 13.01.2019, admitting income of Rs. 22,92,860/-. 3. In the enclosures with the return, the assessee had claimed deduction of Rs. 4,91,61,059/- under section 10B of the 'Act'. The assessee had also stated the other income of Rs. 47,69,679/- per schedule 'A' in P&L account. Not only this, it has also disclosed an amount of Rs. 78,000/- received from sale of its VKGOY(Vishesh Krishi Gram Upaj Yogana) licence issued to it for promoting exports. 4. In scrutiny proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had filed returns on 31.12.2008 whereas the due date under section 139(1) was 30.09.2008 which violated 10(b) 4th proviso. The assessee's explanation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not established any valid reason for belated filing of return of income. Assessee's reliance merely on decisions of certain case laws cannot help in case/cause since, Assessee's case can be clearly distinguished on facts from those cases. Also, Assessee had not brought any evidence to establish genuine hardship faced by it which prevented its filing of return of income in time. 5.14. One cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong. Even when it pertained to Assessee's compliance with TDS pro visions, it had not totally complied wit the same as evidenced by the remark in Column No.27 of the Form 3CD report. Rights and obligations go together. In Assessee's case, even during appellate proceedings, Assessee did not produce any v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see's particulars were ready well before the due date of filing return i.e. 30.09.08. In addition, he strongly supported the CIT(A)'s order as well as findings contained therein and prayed for rejection of the appeal in view of case law (1999) 103 Taxman 623 (SC) Orissa State Warehousing Corporation Vs. CIT. 9. We have heard submissions made by both parties and also gone through the relevant findings, paper book and case law cited. It transpires that the assessee being an EOU, is availing tax concession under section 10B of the 'Act' since Assessment Year 1999-2000 i.e. past nine consecutive Assessment Years. In this regard, we deem it appropriate to reproduce the chart placed on record by the assessee which reads as under:- "Bnazrum Agr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as system's failure in uploading its electronic 'return'. We find from case law of Dhir Global (supra) that the provision of 'due date' under section 139(1) has itself been held to be a directory provision instead of mandatory. The other decisions of Chennai and Hyderabad ITAT benches also follow the same legal tenor. Therefore, by placing reliance in the same, we also hold that since the operation of section 139(1) of the Act is directory in nature, therefore, the assessee 's plea of system failure explaining delay of one month in filing return deserves to be accepted. At the same time, we have perused Hon'ble apex court judgement cited by D.R(supra). We find that in the said case, the issue was entirely different i.e. allowability of 'ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
