TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (1) TMI 286
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1961. 2. The assessee, in this case has filed its return of income by "TAPAL" on 30.9.2008. Thereafter the assessee again filed the return electronically on 6.11.2008. A taxable income of Rs. 13,69,59,409/- was declared. 3. Initially, the return was processed under sec. 143(1) on 19.3.2010. Thereafter the assessment was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed under sec. 143(3) on 31.12.2010. 4. In computing its total income, the assessee had claimed deduction under sec.80IC amounting to Rs. 6,29,60,111/-. This claim of deduction made by the assessee was disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the return filed by the assessee by "TAPAL" before due date of filing of return could not be accepted as a val....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n into consideration that the disallowance of claim u/s 80IC made by the AO u/s 143(1) is not falling within the purview of prima facie adjustment and only adjustment of arithmetical error in the return is permitted. 4. The CIT (Appeals) went wrong in shifting the bundle of mistakes done by the department in the course of recording of return register etc., on the heads of the appellant and blaming the appellant that it is a simple case of non filing of the return on 30.09.2008 is clear case of in-equitous in nature." 6. We heard Shri M. Narayanan, the learned counsel appearing for the assessee. The learned counsel explained that sec.139(1) speaks of filing of a return in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the cases of Second ITO v. M.C.T. Trust [1976] 102 ITR 138 and CIT v. Elgi Equipments Ltd. [2000] 242 ITR 460. 8. The learned counsel further argued that as per sec.292B, the return filed by the assessee manually on 30.9.2008 in ITR-6 contains the same details that are required to be filed electronically. As the return is filed in accordance with the section and the Rule is made beyond the competence of the Board, the Rule that return has to be filed electronically alone is ultra vires the Act. It cannot make the return as invalid. Further, sec.292B also does not make the return filed manually as invalid. Therefore, as a consequence, sec.80AC does not apply. 9. Shri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore due date and contents of that must be furnished in that return. The format has been prescribed by the Rules and also the contents have been prescribed by the Rules. Filing of the return also has been prescribed by the Act. Nowhere in the Act or Rules, there is a mandatory provision that the return must be filed only electronically. This compulsion has been made as a result of the direction issued by the CBDT. As rightly argued by the learned counsel, the direction of the CBDT cannot go beyond the Act and Rules. It cannot overtake the apparent words of the statute. Therefore, what we can hold is that filing of return electronically is a directory provision and if the return is filed manually on or before due date, such return cannot be ....