AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (10) TMI 138
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt on behalf of the assessee. No application seeking adjournment was also filed before us. It appears, therefore, that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal. The appeal was, therefore, proceed to be decided on merits on the basis of material before us. 3. The appeal has been delayed for filing by 32 days. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed stating that the delay was unintentional since the management was tied up with the compliance in new GST regime and the staff who was handed over the work of preparing the appeal and filing it, fell sick. A Duly sworn affidavit of the Director of the assessee company, stating the aforesaid facts on oath was also filed before us. The contents of the affidavit are as under: "1. That, I the deponent, the Director of the Company fully authorized to swear this affidavit as I am fully competent and aware of all the events of the matter. 2. That, I the deponent states that the delay in filing of appeal is just because of miscommunication. Firstly, the appeal matter looked by the accountant who all of sudden fell sick and he returned back on 10th of October, 2017, he has been asked about the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the assessee /for not Adhering the provision of section 80AC. 3. Whether the Ld. CIT (A) was justified in not appreciating the reasons for delay on account of human error initially caused by system and thereafter by typographical mistake and for its delay a condonation letter were sent to Hon'ble Board which is still pending." 6. As is evident from the above, the sole issue relates to denial of claim of deduction u/s 80IC of the Act amounting to Rs. 75,17,116/-. A perusal of the facts as noted in the order of the CIT(A) at para 3.1 of his order reveal that the Assessing Officer (AO) had denied this claim of deduction of the assessee for the reason that the assessee had failed to comply with the necessary condition mandated by law for claiming the said deduction, being the filing of return by due date as per section 139(1) of the Act. The AO had noted that the return filed by the assessee for the year was delayed, having been filed on 9.11.2013 while the due date for the same was 30.9.2012. Referring to the provisions of section 80AC of the Act which mandated the filing of the return on or before the time limit u/s 139(1) of the Act for claiming the deduction, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sub-section (1A) of section 10A, introduced with effect from 1-4-2006, no deduction should be allowed to assessee who does not furnish return of income on or before the due date. Accordingly, applying proviso to section 10A(1A), Assessing Officer denied deduction under section 10A. On appeal by the assessee, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of Assessing Officer. On further appeal by the assessee. the Tribunal held provisions of the proviso to subsection (1A) of section 10A to be merely directory and not mandatory and, therefore, on that basis held that even if return of income was not filed within the time-limit prescribed by section 139(1), the assessee could not be denied deduction under section 10A. Further Instant Special Bench of the Tribunal was constituted to consider the following questions in following manner it is being reproduced hereunder: 15. On the aforementioned facts, the Special Bench held as under- Scheme of the Act with regard to filing of returns in order to decide the issue, the whole scheme of the Act needs to be considered. The assessee is required to file the return of income within the prescr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-09 Therefore in view of the above legal position and discussion it is clear that once the return is filed late beyond due date provided u/s. 139(1) in Section 80 AC then deduction u/s 80IB cannot be allowed." If, we consider the facts of the case in hand in the light of the decisions mentioned hereinabove, we find similarity in the facts of the present case in hand. Therefore, we have no other option but to follow the decisions of the Special Bench and the Co-ordinate Bench (supra). In fact, this was communicated to the assessee when the appeal was heard. The reasons mentioned by the AR are of no relevance. As such, we find no substance in the order me Id. CIT(A) as the issue was squarely covered against the assessee as discussed above. Thus, in our considered view the appeal filed by Revenue is allowed." 3.3.2 The similar issue has also been discussed by the honourable Tribunal in the case of Anoli Holdings Private Limited vs Department of income tax vide order dated 3 August 2016, and the decision has been taken in favor of revenue after considering the facts. 3.7 The decision of Amritsar Bench of the Tribunal in case of Balkishan Vs. ITO (supra] is al....