TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 40X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eturn assessee did not file audit report in form number 10 CCB for claiming deduction u/s 80 IB (11B), therefore we do not find any infirmity in denying deduction to the assessee. Assessee is also aware about the same because it is filed the audit report on 6/11/2017 but did not care to accept the same till 12 December 2017. Therefore even without any intimation the assessee approved the form 10 CCB uploaded by the accountant on 6/11/2017 on 12th/12/2017. Therefore it is not the correct explanation of the assessee that assessee was unaware about the procedure of filing of the audit report. According to us, after introduction of the electronic filing of the return of income as well as all other documents, there is no debate available that even if the audit report is filed before the assessment is made, same is acceptable and the deduction cannot be denied to the assessee. When selection of the cases for further scrutiny, processing of the return of income, claim of the refunds of the assessee or all determined based on the return filed by the assessee and when the provisions of the law and the relevant rules strictly provides that all necessary documents must be filed and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee and further there is an adjustment of ₹ 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 company, email address of the company as available on the website of the Ministry of corporate affairs of the image any email address made available by the addressee. He therefore submitted that the email address at which the intimation was given was not as per email address given in the return. The learned CIT A held that the intimation letter is based on the data provided by the assessee as it picks up the email address there from. Therefore there is no scope for using any imaginary address. He therefore rejected this claim. The next claim for the dispute was with respect to the adjustment of ₹ 271,654/ which was made on account of non- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the computer systems of the department, ₹ 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 ₹ 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 filed by the accountant along with the return of income (b) the report of the accountant was duly approved by the assessee even before the sending of the intimation and making of the adjustment in pursuance of such intimation. 3. That the learned CIT(A)-12, New Delhi has erred on facts and in law in not entertaining the claim of ₹ 271,654.00 of the appellant under section 80IB (11 A) of the act, which he was empowered to admit and allow even when the same is made before him for the first time. 4. That the appellant craves leave of the Honorable Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to add, alter, modify, subst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y 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 advantage of ignorance of an assessee and every assessee should be made known of his/its tax liability as well as benefits, relief deduction available under statute. b Filing of audit report along with the return is not mandatory and is only directory. In case the audit report is submitted at any time before framing of the assessment, there would be substantial compliance with the provisions. c. The appellant had been allowed the deduction under section 80 IB (11A) for the previous year and in the subsequent assessment years also. (Page numbers 4 and 11 of the paper book) Application of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rders 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 ₹ 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 according to his own version he uploaded that form on 6/11/2017 the income tax return and all other attachments however found number 10CCB was accepted by the assessee only on 12 December 2017 which is much beyond the due date of the filing of the return of income i.e. 7/11/2017. Therefore it is apparent that as on the due date of filing of the return assessee did not file audit report in form number 10 CCB for claiming deduction u/s 80 IB (11B), therefore we do not find any infirmity in denying deduction to the assessee. The provisions of rule 12 (2) of the income tax rules 196 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
