TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 1005X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MEMBER AND SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Petitioner : Shri T.N.Seetharaman For the Respondent : Dr.Sibandu Moharana ORDER PER BENCH: This assessee s appeal is directed against the order dated 15.03.2012 passed by CIT(A), Madurai in case ITA No.163/10-11 for Assessment Year 2008-09. The relevant proceedings are under section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961, in short, the Act . 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee /company is engaged in the business of manufacturing export of Gherkins ; who e-filed its return on 31.12.08 followed by ITR-V on 13.01.2019, admitting income of ₹ 22,92,860/-. 3. In the enclosures with the return, the assessee had claimed deduction of ₹ 4,91,61, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reas the assessee had raised the claim by pretending that it was missed out. So, the assessee s conduct was treated as very unnatural, which amounted to concealment. Therefore, the Assessing Officer added an amount of ₹ 4,91,61,059/- ( disallowed deduction under section 10B) in assessee s returned income of ₹ 22,92,864/- (supra). 6. The assessee carried the disallowance in appeal before CIT(A) wherein the Assessing Officer s findings stand confirmed vide impugned order in question before us. It has been held as under by CIT(A): 5.13. Assessee has 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al (P) Ltd., Chennai ITAT D Bench order dated 30.06.2010 in case of ACIT Vs. M/s.Polyhose India Pvt. Ltd., in ITA No.122/Mds/2011 (2012) 52 SOT 437 (Hyderabad) in case of ITO Vs. S.Venkataiah. In the light thereof, he prayed for acceptance of the appeal. 8. On the other hand, the Revenue has forcefully argued that in cases cited by assessee, the facts are distinguishable. In assessee s case this is 3rd year of filing return and his audit report is of dated 29.09.2008 whereas the return was filed on 30.10.08(per CIT(A) s order). Therefore, D.R s pleas is that the assessee 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -- 2005-06 56,86,502 56,86,502 --- 2006-07 86,97,005 86,97,005 2007-08 3,14,32,640 3,14,32,640 31.12.2009* 2008-09 4,91,61,059 Nil 30.12.2009* *Assessment orders under section 143(3) and rest Assessment Years completed under section.143(1)(a). Taking cue from the same and in the absence of any denial by Revenue, we safely assume that the impugned Assessment Year is the last year of assessee s claim und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been successfully getting deduction under section 10B of the Act for the last nine consecutive Assessment Years (supra). 11. After giving our thoughtful consideration to the case and more particularly, in view of the fact that the substantive ground for rejecting assessee s deduction claim is only that of delay of one month(supra) in filing return , we are of the opinion that the assessee has successfully explained the delay. Accordingly we hold that the assessee has filed a valid return under section 139(1) of the Act . Accordingly, the assessee is also held entitled for getting the deduction under section 10B of the Act. 12. Hence, we allow the appeal. Order pronounced on Tuesday, the 18th September, 2012 at Chennai - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
