TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 460X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 29/11/2015, the assessee disclosed the name of the related concerns in India, the nature of the transactions undertaken, and the transaction amount. Thus, from the said details not only the nature of specified domestic transactions undertaken by the Rudrapur unit of the assessee is evident but it is also evident that the aggregate of such transactions entered into by the assessee in the previous year exceeded a sum of Rs. 5,00,00,000. Therefore, we find no basis in the finding of the CIT(A) that there was no information before the AO while processing the return under section 143(1) of the Act, whether the assessee had, inter-alia, specified domestic transactions for which it was required to comply with the provisions of section 92E - Details of international transactions and specified domestic transactions provided in Form 3CEB filed on 18/03/2017 also support the claim of the assessee that the assessee was required to furnish the report referred to in section 92E of the Act. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the due date for filing the return of income for the year under consideration in the case of the assessee is 30/11/2015 as per clause (aa) of Explanation-2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A) to support the conclusion of denial of deduction under section 80-IC vide intimation issued under section 143(1) - Impugned order upholding the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act is set aside. Accordingly, grounds in assessee s appeal are allowed. - Shri Prashant Maharishi, Accountant Member And Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Nitesh Joshi For the Revenue : Shri Ram Krishna Kedia ORDER PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 30/04/2023, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act ) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [ learned CIT(A) ], which in turn arose from the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act, for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. In its appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer disallowing the deduction under section 80IC of Rs. 1,35,62,893/- claimed by the Appellant in respect of its eligible unit in Rudrap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal filed by the assessee against the aforesaid intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act and held that the due date for filing the return of income, in the case of the assessee, was 31/10/2015 as the assessee failed to furnish the prescribed audit report in prescribed form within the specified date as per section 92E of the Act and thus the return filed by the assessee on 29/11/2015 can only be considered as a belated return under section 139(4) of the Act. It was further held that no audit report under section 44AB, section 92E, or section 80-IC as required in the case of the assessee as per the Act was furnished along with the return submitted on 29/11/2015 or before that date. It was further held that the assessee has violated the conditions laid down in section 92E of the Act and therefore any report filed under the aforesaid section afterward cannot be given due cognizance as per the provisions of law. It was further held that in the present case, the audit report under section 92E of the Act was furnished on 14/03/2017, i.e. after the completion of processing under section 143(1) of the Act and therefore there was also no information before the AO whether the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed into specified domestic transactions as defined in section 92BA of the Act exceeding Rs. 5,00,00,000. Therefore, as per the assessee, it was required to furnish a report in Form 3CEB as specified under section 92E of the Act, and thus as per the provisions of Explanation-2 to section 139(1) of the Act, the due date for filing the return of income was 30/11/2015. It is further submitted that the accounts of the assessee were audited on 22/03/2016 and the tax audit report was filed on 14/03/2017. Further, the transfer pricing report in Form 3CEB was filed on 18/03/2017, while the revised Form 10CCB in respect of deduction claimed under section 80-IC was filed on 14/03/2017. Accordingly, the assessee filed its revised return of income on 29/03/2017, wherein the deduction under section 80-IC of the Act was claimed at Rs. 1,35,49,150. 9. As the return filed by the assessee was processed vide intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act, therefore it is not clear on what basis deduction under section 80-IC was denied to the assessee, even though the learned CIT(A) has upheld the aforesaid disallowance on various grounds. Since in the intimation issued under section 143(1) of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 39-52, filed by the assessee on 29/11/2015, the assessee disclosed the name of the related concerns in India, the nature of the transactions undertaken, and the transaction amount. Thus, from the said details not only the nature of specified domestic transactions undertaken by the Rudrapur unit of the assessee is evident but it is also evident that the aggregate of such transactions entered into by the assessee in the previous year exceeded a sum of Rs. 5,00,00,000. Therefore, we find no basis in the finding of the learned CIT(A) that there was no information before the AO while processing the return under section 143(1) of the Act, whether the assessee had, inter-alia, specified domestic transactions for which it was required to comply with the provisions of section 92E of the Act. Details of international transactions and specified domestic transactions provided in Form 3CEB filed on 18/03/2017 also support the claim of the assessee that the assessee was required to furnish the report referred to in section 92E of the Act. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the due date for filing the return of income for the year under consideration in the case of the assessee is 30 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the considered view that the case of the assessee does not fall within the meaning of section 143(1)(a)(ii) read with Explanation (a)(ii). Insofar as the issue whether Form 10CCB filed by the assessee on 29/11/2015 was in terms of provisions of section 80-IC(7) read with section 80-IA(7) of the Act and Rule 18BBB is concerned, we are of the considered view that such an examination is not permissible under the limited scope of section 143(1) of the Act, as under the said section during the assessment year 2015-16 only prima facie adjustments were permissible. Accordingly, we find no merits in the aforesaid findings of the learned CIT(A) to support the conclusion of denial of deduction under section 80-IC vide intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act. In view of our aforesaid findings, the impugned order upholding the intimation dated 26/11/2016 issued under section 143(1) of the Act is set aside. Accordingly, grounds no.1-7 raised in assessee s appeal are allowed. 14. The issue arising in ground No. 8 raised in assessee s appeal pertains to the levy of interest under section 234C of the Act, which is consequential in nature. Therefore, the same needs no separate adju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
