9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 875X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and consequently, direct the first respondent to accept the return of income filed by the Petitioner Company for the assessment year 2010-11 under Section 139(1) of the Act after affording a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing. 2. According to the petitioner, it is a Private Limited Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act and engaged in the business of execution and commissioning of Wind Turbine Generators. As per Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 2006, the due date for filing of returns is on 30th September of the relevant Assessment year. For the impugned assessment year, the Ministry of Finance-Government of India vide notification in No.402/92/2006-MC (42 of 2010) dated 29.09.2010 has extended the last d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 263 of the Act for the impugned assessment year 2010-11. In the show cause notice, the second respondent has stated that the benefit of carry forward losses allowed to the Petitioner Company under Section 143(3) is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue inasmuch as the Petitioner Company has filed their return beyond the last date of filing i.e., 15.10.2010. According to the second respondent, the benefit of carry forward will only be given to a person who had filed the return under Section 139(1) of the Act on or before 15.10.2010 and since the Petitioner Company had filed the return on 16.10.2010, such carry forward loss ought not have been granted by the third respondent in the original assessment under Section 143( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o condone the delay in filing the returns of income and also held that if sufficient reason is given by the petitioner/assessee for filing the return belatedly, the same can be condoned. ii) In Artist Tree (P) Ltd., V. Central Board of Direct Taxes reported in 2014 (390 ITR 691 (Bombay), wherein, the Hon'ble Division Bench of High Court of Bombay has condoned the delay of 22 months in filing return of income, finding that the assessee has given sufficient cause for the condonation of delay. Further, the High Court of Bombay held that there is no presumption that the delay has occurred deliberately or on account of culpable negligence or on account of mala-fides. Further, it has held that a litigant does not stand to benefit by resortin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ince the assessee had submitted the returns for the above said assessment years belatedly, the High Court of Gujarat has taken a view that the petitioner therein has been submitting the returns belatedly and therefore, no indulgence can be shown to the petitioner. 7. In the case on hand, the petitioner has satisfactorily explained the delay in filing the return on 16.10.2010 instead of 15.10.2010. Further, it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner is not entitled to claim the carry forward loss under Section 139(3) of the Act. When the petitioner is entitled to claim the carry forward loss under Section 139(3) of the Income Tax Act, it cannot be stated that the delay in filing the return had occurred deliberately or on acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
