TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1731X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -2009 whereas the due date for filing the return was on 30-09-2009. There was a delay of one day, which was stated to be due to technical reasons while uploading e-return. AO following his stand taken in AY 2008-09 in the case of same unit in the hands of the Proprietor Sri S. Venkataiah wherein there was a delay of 74 day, deduction u/s 80IC was denied invoking the provisions of section 80AC of the IT Act. It was the AO s contention that return was required to be filed before the due date as specified u/s 139(1) and since Assessee has failed to do so, the claim was disallowed. 3. Before the learned CIT(A), Assessee contended that the delay was technical in nature as it was only few hours and it happened due to delay in uploading the e-r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uccessor firm to the same undertaking, the delay is of only one day, claimed by the assessee to have been caused by the detailed data entry required for e- filing of its return. It is apparent and undisputed that there was considerable delay in filing of return for the preceding year involving re-entry of data for the entire year. It is, therefore, conceivable that the assessee being preoccupied with affairs of the preceding year was not in a position to complete the accounting and other requirements for finalisation of its accounts well within time. It is also relevant to note that the delay in filing of return was of only one day, indeed of a few hours. The assessee's explanation that the delay occurred due to the requirement of exten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the date has changed from 30-09-2009 to 01-10-2009. In view of mitigating circumstances, the delay can be condoned. Further, as rightly held by the learned CIT(A), the Courts have held that due date for furnishing return of income as per section 139(1) is subject to extended period provided u/s 139(4). In view of this reason also the order of CIT(A) is to be upheld. In Assessee s units own case when it was a proprietary concern of Sri S. Venkataiah in earlier year, ITAT elaborately discussed the issue and upheld CIT(A) s order dismissing Revenue s appeal as devoid of any merit. Respectfully following the said order of coordinate bench, which the learned CIT(A) also followed, we dismiss the grounds raised by Revenue in this regard. 6. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
