9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1096X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions are being disposed. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 9.10.2015 passed by the 2nd respondent Central Board of Direct Taxes under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. By the impugned order, the 2nd respondent has declined to condone the delay in filing returns under Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as a result of which, the petitioner claimed for the benefit of deduction under Section 10 B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2008-09 and the assessment year 2009-10 stands finally disallowed. 4. The petitioner had filed returns for the respective assessment years belatedly on 20.2.2009 and on 20.11.2009. It is the contention of the petitioner that it is a 100% Export Oriented ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ling returns for the two years in time, the petitioner did not gain any advantage. It was further stated that the petitioner was not in the habit of filing returns belatedly and the delay arose on account of corruption of data in the computer and illness of its Managing Director who suffered a health setback. 10. It was further submitted that the allegation in the show cause notice the petitioner had not paid MAT till the date of audit was incorrect as MAT was paid before November 2009 itself. 11. He submits that the lapses resulting in filing of the returns in time for the two assessment years in question are liable to be condoned. It is further submitted that the Chartered Accountant committed mistake in not preparing the returns in tim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 20.134 crores whereas, tax due as per MAT provisions was not found to be paid till that date. 17. Similarly, for the assessment year 2008-09, also the petitioner had not paid the tax due on the book profit and it is for this reason the petitioner had failed to file the return of income in time. 18. The petitioner replied to the above notice vide reply dated 21.9.2015 wherein it was stated that right from the assessment years 2004- 05 upto 2007-08, the petitioner had filed the returns in time and only for the 2 years in question there was a marginal delay of little over 3 months and 50 days respectively in filing the returns. 19. To claim the benefit of Section 10 B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an assessee is required to file the retur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 10 B is dependent on the returns filed by the due date as per Section 139 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, the failure on the part of the petitioner to claim deduction on account of the delay comes in the legitimate way of the petitioner claiming deduction. The failure to file the returns in time has to be construed liberally to allow the benefit, provided such applications are made within a reasonable time. 24. In this case, the assessment orders have been passed for the respective assessment years on 28.12.2010 and on 26.12.2011. While passing the assessment order, the assessing officer could have extended the benefit to the petitioner but for the delay in filing returns in time. Legitimate export incentives that are gen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
