TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 376X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DELHI] categorically held that when the deduction u/s 80IC of the Act has not been questioned by the department on merits there is no justification for not viewing the delay of 46 days in filing the return to be bona fide. In this case there is nothing contrary on record on merit qua deduction of claim. Hence, on the basis of aforesaid analyzations and respectfully following the judgments referred above, we are inclined to allow the claim of the Assessee. Consequently, the addition made by the AO and sustained by the ld. Commissioner is deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 6426/Del/2016 - - - Dated:- 25-2-2022 - Shri R.K.Panda, Accountant Member And Shri N. K. Choudhry, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Vivek ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee relied upon the order dated 30.01.2015 passed by the Hon ble ITAT, Mumbai bench in case of Dwarkadas Panchmatiya Vs.ACIT in ITA No. 4727/Mum/2012 (2015) 57 Taxmann.com 2(Mumbai Tribunal). 3. Aggrieved by the impugned order the Assessee is in appeal before us. 4. Heard the parties and perused the material available on record. For claiming the deduction u/s 80IC/80IC the Assessee was supposed to file its return of income within the stipulated period i.e. 30.11.2013 however, the same was filed on dated 26.02.2014 and therefore on the basis of delay in filing of return of income both the authorities below declined the deduction as claimed u/s 80IC/80IC of the Act by the Assessee. 5. The ld. AR has drawn our attention to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... infact relied upon an old judgment, whereas the Jurisdictional Bench in the case of Fiberfill Engineers Vs. CIT, Circle-38(1), New Delhi {Appeal No. 501(CHD) of 2017 decided on 01.10.2017}[(2017) 87 Taxmann.com 32 (Chandigarh-Trib)] dealt with the identical issue and held as under: That bare perusal of the section makes it clear that the legislature itself has allowed the Assessee to file return belatedly subject to fulfillment of conditions written in the said section. Therefore, once those conditions are met, then return filed by the Assessee would for all technical purposes be considered being filed u/s 139(1). Thus, keeping in view the various decisions noted earlier, we do not find any reason to deny the claim of Assessee on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied to the Assessee on the ground that the report initially submitted along with letter dated 16.01.2014 in Form No. 10CCB did not contain complete particulars as the Assessee had submitted complete Form during the course of assessment proceedings itself on 04.03.2014. 9. It is admitted fact that in this case that the Assessee before the filing the return of income on dated 03.09.2013 filed its audit report on dated 31.10.2013 which was before the stipulated period or due date of filing of return on 30.11.2013 and from the judgments referred above it is clear that even return of income filed belatedly u/s 139(4) of the Act also cannot be denied for claiming the deduction u/s 80IC/ 80IE of the Act. The Hon ble Jurisdictional High Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
