Tribunal Upholds Deduction Claim Despite Filing Delay Due to Tech Issues, Dismisses Revenue's Appeal Under IT Act.

The Tribunal dismissed Revenue's appeal, upholding CIT(A)'s decision to allow the Assessee's deduction claim under section 80IC of the IT Act. The Assessee's one-day delay in filing was attributed to technical issues, deemed justifiable, and condonable. The Tribunal emphasized that the delay should not preclude the deduction, aligning with precedents in similar cases.

---

---

Issues involved: Appeal by Revenue against order of CIT(A)-VI, Hyderabad regarding allowance claim u/s 80IC.

Summary:
The appeal was filed by Revenue against the order of CIT(A)-VI, Hyderabad dated 21-08-2012, concerning the allowance claim u/s 80IC. The Assessee filed a return of income claiming deduction of &8377; 4,06,98,440/- u/s 80IC, with a delay of one day due to technical reasons in uploading the e-return. The AO denied the deduction invoking section 80AC of the IT Act, stating that the return should have been filed before the due date specified u/s 139(1).

Before the CIT(A), Assessee argued that the delay was technical and should not lead to disallowance of the claim. CIT(A) allowed the claim, considering the Assessee's genuine reasons for the delay and the precedent set by ITAT in similar cases. The delay was attributed to extensive data entry required for e-filing, and it was held that Assessee was eligible for deduction u/s 80IC.

The Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the delay was due to technical reasons and could be condoned. It was noted that the due date for filing the return of income as per section 139(1) is subject to the extended period provided u/s 139(4). Referring to a previous case involving the same Assessee, the Tribunal dismissed Revenue's appeal, as the delay was deemed justifiable and the Assessee was found eligible for the deduction u/s 80IC.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of Revenue, emphasizing that the delay in filing the return was due to technical reasons and should be condoned. The decision was based on the interpretation of relevant sections and the precedent set by previous cases involving the same Assessee.

---