9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 40X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... apter VI A of only Rs. 175,000 whereas the claim of the assessee was Rs. 446,654 and c. Consequently determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 921,290/- against the total income offered by the assessee in the return of income at Rs. 639,960/-. According to that intimation u/s 143 (1) demand of Rs. 74,035 was payable. 3. The assessee challenged the above order u/s 143 (1) of the act passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner of income tax, CPC, Bangalore before the learned Commissioner of income tax (appeals) - 12, New Delhi. The assessee claimed before him that the claim of deduction u/s 80 IB amounting to Rs. 271,654 is denied to the assessee and further there is an adjustment of Rs. 9672 made by the CPC Bangalore. The assessee contested before him that there was no intimation by CPC Bangalore before making the adjustment at the correct email address and the intimation given in the electronic mode is not as provided in law. He further stated that as per rule 127, the communication which is transmitted electronically has to be at the email address available in the income tax return or to the email address available in the last income tax return or in the case of the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e audit report along with the return of income, duly signed and verified by the accountant. Such adjustment is permissible within the provisions of Section 143 (1) of the IT act. Therefore the adjustment of Rs. 271,654/- is upheld." 4. Therefore, assessee is aggrieved with the above order and has preferred this appeal raising following grounds of appeal:- "1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A)-12 New Delhi, has erred on facts and in law in holding that there has been effective communication/service of the intimation as per the first proviso to section 143(1), just because it is sent by the computer systems of the department, Rs. 63,908/- even though the relevant law states otherwise and facts point in other direction. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) -12 New Delhi, has erred on facts and in law in confirming the adjustment/addition of Rs. 271654.00 u/s 143(l)(a), being claim of the assessee under section 80IB(11A) of the income tax act 1961 by holding that such adjustment is permissible under section 143(1) (a), even though (a) the same was duly supported by the audit report in form 10CCB fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven in the communication as well in the intimation to make this adjustment, (a) that in schedule VI-A part C deduction in respect of certain incomes in SN 2q,, deduction is claimed under section 80IB without filling the corresponding schedule 80IB and (b) form number 10CCB filed is not within due date. First reason is not factually correct. Form 10CC B is duly filed on the portal by the accountant within due date which is approved by the assessee on 12.12.2017 , much before the date of processing by CPC which is 10.1.2019. The issue whether the filing of the report of accountant is mandatory or directory is a debatable issue and, therefore, DCIT, CPC was not within his powers to make adjustments under section 143(1)(a)(ii) on such debatable issue. 3. Deduction under section 80 IB is allowable when there is delay in filing the report of an accountant: a) Appellant is not much educated person and is not computer literate at all, which is the primary reason of the technical default of delayed approving of the report of the accountant. It is established position in law as endorsed by circular number l4(XL-35) dated L 1 .4. 1955 to the effect that department should not take adva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate however he did not filed the audit report prior to the due date but on 12/11/2017, therefore there is no infirmity in the intimation denying the above deduction as it has failed to comply with one of the basic conditions. He further submitted that even if before the processing of the return such audit report is available, it violates the conditions prescribed u/s 80 IB (11 B) (iv) of the act and therefore the condition is not in accordance with the law and hence the deduction is required to be disallowed. 8. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the lower authorities. We have also perused the communication of the proposed adjustment u/s 143 (1) (a) of the income tax act issued by the central processing centre, Bangalore on 24/9/2018 wherein it is intimated to assessee that there is an incorrect claim Under Chapter VIA of the income tax act of Rs. 271,654 for non filing of the audit report u/s 80 IB in form number 10 CCB within due date of the filing of the return of income. The facts clearly shows that the due date of filing of the return of income was 7/11/2017 whereas the assessee filed his return of income on 6 November 2017 however acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
