2019 (6) TMI 1045

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....w and facts of the case. 2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in framing the impugned assessment order u/s 147/144 and without complying with the mandatory conditions u/s 147/148/151 as envisaged under the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in disallowing the benefit of deduction u/s 80IC amounting to Rs. 30,17,900/-, as earlier wrongly claimed by the assessee u/s 80IB of the Act, without giving adequate opportunity of being heard and without observing the principles of natural justic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of income within the stipulated period as provided u/s 139(1) of the Act. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that so far as the denial of claim of deduction u/s 80IB of the Act is concerned, the assessee, otherwise, is entitled to deduction u/s 80IC of the Act also. He has further submitted that even in the subsequent assessment years, on identical issue, the matter has been restored to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to examine as if the assessee is entitled to deduction us 80IC of the Act and if found so eligible, allow the deduction to the assessee accordingly. He has, therefore, submitted that mere mentioning of wrong section does not disentitle the assessee from claiming deduction, if the assessee ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....enerated information which shows that the counsel for the assessee had tried to upload the return on 30.9.2011 and an 'XML' file was also created. That the return of income was immediately filed on the next date. The Ld. Counsel, therefore, has submitted that the assessee could not be denied deduction for delay of one day in filing the return of income beyond the limitation period prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act, which was beyond the control of the assessee. 9. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, has relied on the findings of the lower authorities. 10. Considering the rival contentions and also considering the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of 'Symbiosis Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT' (supra), I am of the ....