TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 434
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s the above, the AO also noticed that the return of income has been filed by the assessee for A.Y.2010-11 only on 31.03.2011 which was beyond the due date for filing the return u/s 139(1) of the Act. The AO was of the view that as per the provision of section 80AC of the Act any deduction under Chapter-VI A of the Act (Sec.80IE of the Act is part of Chapter VIA of the Act) can be claimed only if the return of income for the relevant assessment year is filed on or before the due date prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act. Since the assessee has not complied with the aforesaid conditions, the AO refused to allow deduction u/s 80IE of the Act. 3. On appeal by the Assessee, the CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO. On further appeal by the Assessee, the Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) with the following observations: "5. We have heard the submissions of the ld. Counsel for the assessee, who submitted that the provision of section 80AC of the Act is directory and not mandatory. We have considered the submissions and are of the view that the same cannot be accepted. 6. In Saffire Garments Vs. ITO 140 ITD 0006(SB)(Rajkot), the special bench of the Tribunal in the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... tax payable by him after reducing advance tax and TDS/TCS if any paid by him apart from some other reductions. The legal position is by now settled that charging of interest under various sections including u/s 234A was mandatory. When one of the consequences for not filing ROI within the due date prescribed u/s 139(1) was mandatory then, other consequence for the same failure of the assessee could not be directory and the same was also mandatory. The provisions of the proviso to Section 10A(1A) was therefore held to be mandatory and not directory. 8. Another argument put forth before the Special Bench was that Sec.139(4) is a proviso to Sec.139(1) of the Act and therefore return filed before the time limit prescribed in Sec.139(4) should also be considered as a return filed u/s.139(1) of the Act. This argument was also considered and rejected by the special Bench and the Special Bench held that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Nath Khanna vs. CIT as reported in 266 ITR 01 (S.C.) has held that filing of return of income within the time allowed u/s 139(4) of the Income tax Act, 1961 cannot dilute the infraction in not furnishing return in due time as prescr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....It is the plea of the Assessee in this MA that a written submission was filed on behalf of the Assessee before the Tribunal which contained inter alia copy of a number of judicial decisions, namely the (a) Division decision of Tribunal ' A ' Bench, Delhi in the case of M/s Fiberfill Engineers [ITA No.1853/Del/2015 dated 25th February, 2016] (b) Division Bench judgment of the High Court at Delhi in the case of CIT - versus - M/s Unitech Limited [ITA No. 239/2015 dated 05th October, 2015] and decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the case of (a) Straw Board Manufacturing Ltd dated 28th April,1989 and (b) CIT -versus- Poddar Cements Private Ltd dated 27th May, 1997 to support the case of the assessee. It has further been contended that in the impugned order of Tribunal dated 22nd September, 2017, there was no mention or discussion or reference to any of the aforesaid decisions nor there was any finding, after discussion of the facts of the case/s that the cases cited above did not support the case of the Assessee or the arguments made on behalf of the appellant. It is claimed that the above omission constitutes mistake apparent from the record, which requires rectifica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Unitech Ltd.'s (supra) case and the same for adjudication in Civil Appeal No.1460 of 2017. According to him therefore the last word on the issue is yet to be pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. According to him therefore all these aspects should have been spelt out in the order of the Tribunal so that the appellate forum when the issue is taken up on appeal, can appreciate the case of the assessee. 6. The Ld. DR pointed out that when the issue is covered against the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Shelcon Properties (P)Ltd (supra), which is the Jurisdiction High Court, as far as the assessee and ITAT are concerned, the Tribunal has no other option but to follow the same. According to him, there is no mistake apparent on the face of the order of the Tribunal. 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. As rightly contented by the ld. DR, when the issue is squarely and admittedly covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, reference to the decision of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of M/s Fibrefill Engineers (supra) is not necessary. As far as the decision of ....