TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 1208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139. The provisions of section 80AC are directory and even the Board may, under the provision of section 119, condone the delay in order to avoid undue hardship. In the present case it cannot be said that the delay was, in any manner, mala fide. On the contrary, the assessee was vigilant enough to file the return at the midnight. We, therefore, condone the delay in filing the return. As far as ld. CIT(A) s direction to the AO is concerned, we find that the assessee itself has clearly stated in its reply reproduced by AO in the assessment order, that the return was uploaded at 12.46 AM on 1-10-2009. Therefore, there was no necessity for restoring the matter to the file of AO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... return was actually uploaded and filed on the site of the Income-tax department at 12.46AM on 1-102009 and thus there was only a technical delay of 46 minutes in filing of return which, in any case, was filed before the commencement of the next working day. 3. Ld. CIT(A) directed the AO to verify the date when the return was uploaded and sent into transmission observing as under: The AO is directed to verify the contention of the appellant with the information available with the Directorate of systems regarding this electronic trail of the e-return filed. In case it is found that the return was indeed unloaded with the electronic signature on 30-09-2009, the stipulated date of filing of the return, then it shall be held as per the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in law, the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in deleting the addition the addition without giving AO opportunity for rebut as per rule 46A, as no remand report was called for in respect of verifying the electronic trial of filling the return from DIT (Systems). 4. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous and is not tenable on the facts and in law. 5. That the grounds of Appeal are without prejudice to each other. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, to alter, or amend on the ground of at the appeal raised above at the time of hearing. 5. The assessee has filed cross-objection, taking following grounds: (1) That the order dated 06-06-2013 passed u/s 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the Learned Commissioner of IncomeTax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ub-section (1) of section 139. However, section 139(4) carves out an exception to the time limit u/s 139(1) for filing the return of income. Therefore, time limit for filing the return of income is neither inflexible nor inelastic. Thus, the provisions of section 80AC are directory and even the Board may, under the provision of section 119, condone the delay in order to avoid undue hardship. 8. In the present case it cannot be said that the delay was, in any manner, mala fide. On the contrary, the assessee was vigilant enough to file the return at the midnight. We, therefore, condone the delay in filing the return. 9. As far as ld. CIT(A) s direction to the AO is concerned, we find that the assessee itself has clearly stated in its re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
