AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 1226
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ption claimed by the assessee u/s. 10A at Rs. 24,01,97,731 on the reason that the assessee has failed to produce FIRCs to support its claim. Before the CIT(A), the assessee produced a copy of letter from Bank to show that the funds have been brought into India. Considering the plea of the assessee, the CIT(A) observed that the AO had not given even one week time to the assessee to produce FIRCs and the same was produced before the CIT(A). The claim was duly examined by the CIT(A) and found correct. Accordingly, the CIT(A) directed the AO to grant the deduction after due verification of the FIRCs. Against this direction of the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 4. We have heard both the parties on this issue and perused the material on record. The CIT(A) has given a categorical finding in her order that the assessee has produced the FIRCs from the Bank to show that the funds have been brought into India in convertible foreign exchange. The learned DR is not able to controvert the finding of the CIT(A). Being so, we are inclined to confirm the order of this CIT(A) on this count. This ground by the Revenue is dismissed. 5. The Revenue raised one more ground in this appeal w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f made vouchers. 14. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. The has assessee is a public limited company whose accounts are audited by statutory auditors and approved by its General Body and there cannot be any expenditure of personal nature. Unless and until the AO points out any specific discrepancy on the expenses incurred by the assessee, we are not in a position to disallow any amount on this count. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) on this issue is reversed and the ground taken by the assessee is allowed. 15. In the result, assessee appeal in ITA No. 340/Hyd/2013 is partly allowed. 16. Now we will adjudicate upon the Revenue appeal in ITA No. 1379/Hyd/2012 for A.Y. 2008 09. The Revenue raised the following grounds of appeal: i) The CIT(A) erred in law in holding that the rectification u/s. 154 for disallowing deduction u/s. 10A on the ground that valid return was not filed within due date is not correct. ii) The CIT(A) erred in law in holding that the issue of "filing of return within due date as required u/s. 10A(1A)" is not a mistake apparent from record. 17. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee, a firm engaged in the busin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncome that the assessee was preparing its 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 is beyond the control of assessee. This was also confirmed by the statutory auditor vide his letter dated 20.3.2011. Being so, in our opinion there is a reasonable cause for filing the return of income belatedly and this is beyond the control of the assessee. When the substantial question of justice involved technicalities should be ignored. Further, we are supported by the order of the Tribunal in ITA Nos.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt was filed during the course of re assessment proceedings and in response to the show cause notice under s. 148 issued by the Assessing Officer. In this view of the matter, respectfully following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court cited above, among others, we find no justification to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). We accordingly uphold the same and reject the grounds of the Revenue in this appeal." 2. In our opinion, in view of the above discussion, the claim of the assessee cannot be denied on technicalities when the assessee is legally otherwise entitled for deduction. As such we are inclined to dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue as devoid of merit." (c) ACIT vs. Dhir Global Industries (P) Ltd., 43 SOT 640 (Delhi) wherein it was held as under: "6.2 We have heard both the counsels and perused the records. We find that it is undisputed that a provision has been inserted during the current year in section 1OB(1) which provides that no deduction under this section shall be allowed to an assessee if the return of income is not furnished on or before the due date specified under sub section (1) of section 139. Now this section was introduced w.e.f. 1 4 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owed to an assessee under this section unless return is furnished, on or before the due date specified under sub section (I) of section 139. 6.6 In the background of the aforesaid scheme of Act and the discussion, we find that this proviso in section 10(B)( I) is directory and not mandatory. Further when we consider the provision of section 10(5) which reads as under: "The deduction under sub section (1) shall not be admissible for any assessment year beginning on or after the 1st day of April, 2001, unless the assessee furnishes in the prescribed form, along with the return of income, the report of an accountant, as defined in the Explanation below sub section (2) of section 288, certifying that the deduction has been correctly claimed in accordance with the provisions of this section." 6.7 Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court had an occasion to consider this provision of section 10(5) in the case of Integrated Database India Ltd. (supra) and Web Commerce (India) (P.) Ltd. 's case (supra). The Hon'ble Court in the case of Web Commerce (India) (P) Ltd. (supra) has held as under: "This Court has already interpreted the latter provisions and has held the same to be directory and not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....here was genuine and valid reason for the delay in filing of return and moreover as we have already found above these provisions are directory and not mandatory. Once the validity of the return has not been questioned by the revenue, in our considered opinion, the rejection of the assessee's claim under section 10B(I) at the threshold by the Assessing Officer was not justified. In this regard, the case laws relied by the assessee at germane. In this connection, we refer to the following case laws: " Continental Construction (P.) Ltd. 's case (supra) (ii) That, however, in view of the bona fide belief entertained by the petitioner, the department ought not to stand on mere technicalities but ought to give the petitioner an opportunity to fulfil the requirements of section 80HHB(3) and, on such compliance within a reasonable time, ought to grant the benefit of that section to the petitioner." Bajaj Tempo Ltd. 's case (supra) "A provision in a taxing statute granting incentives for promoting growth and development should be construed liberally; and since a provision for promoting economic growth has to be interpreted liberally, the restriction on it too has to be construed so as t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n appeal is preferred to dispose of the whole or any part of the matter afresh, unless forbidden from doing so by statute. 6.14 In the background of the aforesaid discussion and precedent, we remit this issue to the files of the Assessing Officer. He shall examine the merits of the assessee's claim of exemption under section 10B. We make it clear that we have already adjudicated the issue regarding delay in filing of return of income in assessee's favour in the forgoing paragraphs, the same shall not again form part of adjudication by the Assessing Officer. Needless to add that the assessee should be given adequate opportunity of being heard. (d) Further the AR relied on the judgement of H.P. High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jagish Ram Krishan Chand (304 ITR 45) wherein held that assessee can file a revised return and claim benefit u/s. 80HH and 80J even if the said benefits were not claimed in the original return. (e) The AR also relied on the decision of Chennai B Bench in the case of M/s. Bnazrum Agro Exports (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT, in ITA No. 774/Mds/2012. The Tribunal vide order dated 18.9.2012 held as under: "11. After giving our thoughtful consideration to the case and more ....