TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (6) TMI 40
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the Rule 46A(3) of IT Rules, 1962. 3. The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the AO had rightly disallowed the deduction claimed u/s. 80IC following the provisions of section 80AC. 4. The CIT(A) ought to have held that the explanation offered by the assessee was nothing but an after though and devoid of any merit as no effort was made by him to take recourse u/s. 119(2)(b) for extension of time for filing the return of income. 5. The CIT(A) erred in coming to a conclusion that the assessee was prevented by a genuine reason in filing the return belatedly. 6. The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the intention of the legislature behind incorporating sec. 80AC was to impose stringent guidelines on the assessees who claim ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubsequent assessment year, any deduction is admissible under section 80IA of section 80IAB or section 80IB or section 80IC (or section 80ID or section 80IE) no such deduction shall be allowed to him unless he furnishes a return of his income for such assessment year on or before the due date specified under subsection of Section 139J". 6. In response to the show cause letter dated 29/11/2010 the Assessee has filed the reply vide letter dated 13/12/2010, wherein the assessee has mentioned that due to technical problems in computer system, the return of income was filed on 23/12/2008, with a delay of 74 days. The assessee had submitted before the Assessing Officer that while the assessee was preparing the Balance Sheet and Profit & Loss Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... his reply before the Assessing Officer had placed reliance on the under mentioned case laws:- (a) ACIT v. Dhir Global Industrial (P) Ltd. 45 DTR [DEL-TRIB] 290 (b) Bajaj Tempo Ltd v. CIT 104 CTR 216 [SC] (c) CIT v. U.P. State Agro Industrial Corporation 56 Taxman 349 [All] (d) CIT v. Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd 93 ITR 548 [Bom] (e) CIT v. Satellite Engineering Ltd 113 ITR 208 [GUJ] (f) CIT v. Gedore Tools India (P) Ltd. 126 ITR 673 [Del] (g) Ashok Motors Ltd v. CIT 41 ITR 397, 402,404 [Mad] (h) Chembra Peak Estates Ltd. v. CIT 85 ITR 401 [Ker] (i) Capsulation Services (P) Ltd. v. CIT 91 ITR 566, 570 [Bom] (j) CIT v. Gaekwar Foam & Rubber Co., Ltd. 351 ITR 662 [Bom] (k) Trustees of Tulsidas Gopalji Charitable ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n u/s. 139(1) was only directory and not mandatory. In the present case the reasons stated by the assessee were some technical problems in the computers owing to which the return could not be filed in time, was very vague and devoid of any merit and that the assessee had not produced any documentary evidence to substantiate his claim and in the absence of any corroborative evidence, the reasons cited by the assessee cannot be construed as genuine hardship which prevented him from filing the Return of Income in time. Citing the above reasons the Assessing Officer has rejected the claim of the assessee made u/s. 80IC of Rs. 4,55,69,014/- and completed the assessment on an income of Rs. 4,59,13,167/-. Against this, the assessee went in appeal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... accounts through computer and the computer got corrupted due to viruses and in spite of continuous efforts by the computer technical personnel to retrieve the data in time for filing the return of income, problem persisted in the system. By trying to retrieve the data for 4 days the required data could not be retrieved and the backed up data were available only up to 31st January, 2008 in the CD and the entire data for the two months period, February and March, 2008, had to be re-entered into the computer system again. On preparation of the final accounts and finalising of statutory audit it took a little extra time that resulted in belated filing of return of income. Thus there was a delay of 74 days in filing the return of income which i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al and as held in various decisions referred to by the CIT(A) in the impugned order, that though filing of audit report in Form 10CCB is mandatory and prerequisite for deduction under S. 80IB, non-filing of the same along with the return of income is only a curable defect, and assessee's claim for deduction has to be considered on its merits as and when the defect is cured by filing Form 10CCB. We are fortified in this behalf by the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hemsons Industries (Supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee. It is contended by the Learned Departmental Representative that the assessee's claim for deduction under S. 80IB can be entertained and examined on merits, when the au....