Strict compliance for Section 80IB deduction: late return beyond the due date cannot be saved by Section 139(4).

Section 80AC was construed strictly to require a return of income to be filed on or before the due date under Section 139(1) for deduction under Section 80IB. The Court declined to read Section 139(4) into Section 80AC, holding that a later return cannot cure non-compliance where Parliament omitted any reference to that provision. On the condonation issue, the refusal under Section 119 was upheld because the explanation for delay was not shown to be beyond the assessee's control, and the absence of the auditor's report was treated as at most a curable irregularity. The claimed deduction therefore remained unavailable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Section 139(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be read into Section 80AC to permit deduction under Section 80IB despite filing the return beyond the due date under Section 139(1); (ii) Whether the CBDT erred in refusing to condone the delay in filing the return and in declining relief under Section 119.

Issue (i): Whether Section 139(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be read into Section 80AC to permit deduction under Section 80IB despite filing the return beyond the due date under Section 139(1).

Analysis: Section 80AC expressly denies deduction under specified Chapter VI-A provisions, including Section 80IB, unless the return is furnished on or before the due date under Section 139(1). The provision was construed strictly as a fiscal exemption provision. The Court held that where Parliament has consciously omitted any reference to Section 139(4), it is impermissible to import that provision by interpretation. The earlier Full Bench view on Section 139(4) could not override the specific statutory scheme governing deduction claims under Section 80AC.

Conclusion: No. Section 139(4) cannot be read into Section 80AC, and the deduction under Section 80IB was not available to the assessee because the return was not filed within the due date under Section 139(1).

Issue (ii): Whether the CBDT erred in refusing to condone the delay in filing the return and in declining relief under Section 119.

Analysis: The Court found that the assessee had the material necessary to file the return within time, except for the auditor's report in Form 10CCB, and that non-filing of that report along with the return was at most a curable irregularity. The delay was not shown to have been caused by circumstances beyond the assessee's control. The CBDT's assessment of the explanation for delay was held to be reasonable, and the Court declined to interfere with the order rejecting condonation.

Conclusion: No. The refusal to condone the delay under Section 119 was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed because the statutory bar under Section 80AC operated strictly and the order declining condonation of delay was sustained, leaving the assessee without the claimed deduction.

Ratio Decidendi: A deduction provision in a fiscal statute must be applied strictly according to its express terms, and where the statute requires filing of the return by the due date, courts will not read in a more liberal filing provision unless the legislature has clearly provided for it.

---