TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 1836
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... mainly on behalf of the Govt. of West Bengal. The assessee filed its original return of income on 29.11.2006 declaring taxable income of Rs. 15,27,86,009/-. The due date of filing the return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act was 30.11.2006. The assessee filed a revised return on 28.03.2008 declaring taxable income of Rs. 5,83,98,641/- after claiming deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act amounting to Rs. 9,43,87,368/-. The said deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act was admittedly not claimed by the assessee in the original return filed on 29.11.2006. The assessee stated before the AO that the reason for filing revised return was based on the advice of the tax consultant to claim deduction u/s. 80IA of the act which the assessee was legitimately entitled to. The assessee is a civil construction company, engaged in the construction and development of infrastructure facilities like roads, bridges, water supply system, erection system etc. Such projects are obtained directly from the State Govt. or other statutory bodies after successful bidding through tenders. The assessee entered into an agreement with the State govt. and other authorities and undertakes to complete the projects in time within the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ld. CIT(A) by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Universal Trading Co. reported in (1978) 114 ITR 412 (Cal) held that if nothing is specifically stated in the statute then original return would include revised return of income. In the instant case, since only return of income has been stated in the statute and as such the return of income as mentioned in section 80IA of the Act would mean revised return of income. The Ld. CIT(A) also placed reliance on the decision of Coordinate Bench of Delhi ITAT in the case of Laxmi Rice Mills Vs. ITO, reported in (1982) 2 ITD 39 wherein the Tribunal held that if assessee can offer valid explanation for the delay in getting the accounts audited then the deduction u/s. 80J which is pari materia with section 80IA of the Act should be allowed. Based on the aforesaid observations, the Ld. CIT(A) granted deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act to the assessee. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us on the following grounds: "i)That on the facts and circumstances of the case and also in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the claim of the assessee without considering the fact that Se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f income on or before the due date of filing the return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act. In the instant case, the assessee admittedly had filed the return of income before the due date specified u/s. 139(1) of the Act. Admittedly, the accounts of the eligible undertaking had been duly audited by an accountant much before the due date of filing return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act. It is only that the audit certificate in Form No. 10CCB was obtained after the filing of original return of income and the same was filed along with the revised return of income which is filed within the date specified u/s. 139(5) of the Act. Hence, he argued that the AO ought to have taken cognizance of the valid revised return that was very much available before him while framing assessment. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Dhampur Sugar Mills. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1973) 90 ITR 236 (All), wherein the question raised before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court was whether, original return would continue to form the basis for the purpose of assessment even after it was substituted by a revised return. The Hon'ble High Court held that "when an a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eturn was filed under section 139(5) on 30.3.2010 claiming deduction under section 80lA at Rs. 37,27,928/-. The section says unless the assessee files a return under section 139(1) within the due date, deduction under section 80IA/80-IB/80-IC/80-ID/80-IE shall not be allowed and at the same time section 139(5) provides for filing a revised return, when the assessee discovers any omission or any wrong statement made in the return already filed under sub-section (1) of section 139 or return filed under sub- section (1) of section 142. This revised return can be filed at any time before expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of assessment, whichever is earlier. In view of our above observations, the submission of the Departmental Representative that since the assessee had not made any claim in its original return filed under section 139(1), no deduction is allowable under section 80lA of the Act, in view of the provisions of section 80AC, has no force." 6. Similar view was taken by the Coordinate Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of DCIT Vs. Kamdhenu Builders & Developers in ITA No. 7010/Mum/2010 dated 27.01.2016. He further p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... hence, the same are not reiterated for the sake of brevity. The analysis to the impugned issue by the Ld. CIT(A) and the various provisions of the Act relating to the impugned issue together with the various case laws relied on by the Ld. AR are not reiterated herein for the sake of brevity. We found it pertinent to analyse the applicability of the Special bench decision of the Rajkot Tribunal in the case of Saffire Garments Vs. ITO reported in (2012) 28 Taxman.com 27 (Rajkot S.B) dated 30.11.2012 to the facts of the instant case. We find that the Hon'ble Special bench observed that the proviso to section 10A(1A) of the Act states that no deduction under this section shall be allowed to an assessee who does not furnish a return of his income on or before the due date specified under section 139(1) of the Act and accordingly, it was held that the above proviso is mandatory and not directory. The Hon'ble Special Bench distinguished catena of cases relied on by the assessee and held that those decisions were in different context, viz., filing of audit report, form No. 10CCB etc. and hence, were not applicable to the assessee. While distinguishing the cases, the Hon'ble Special Bench ....