TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 852
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rving as under:- 3. Against the processing of income tax return u/s 143(1)(a) on 18.12.2019, the assessee filed rectification petition u/s 154 of the IT Act before the CPC on 25.12.2019,which was not accepted and the order was passed on 9/1/2020 by rejecting the claim of the assessee of deduction u/s 80IA . Against the order of the sec. 154 of the Incometax Act, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) and CIT(A) did not allow the claim of the deduction under u/s 80IA by holding that Form No.10CCB was not filed in time as per the provision of sec. 139(1) and also by relying on the various case laws he dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. The CIT(A) observed that "4.6 The provision of Sec.80AC clearly states that no deduction u/s.801A shall be allowed to the assessee unless he furnishes the return of income for such assessment year on or before the due date specified under sub-section (1) of sec. 139. There is no ambiguity in the wordings of the section. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant has not made its claim of deduction u/s.801A in the original return filed by him before the due date allowed u/s.139(1). The deduction u/s.801A was claimed in the revised return....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on the due date of filing of return of income, From No.10CCB cannot be filed but later on, the assessee filed requisite form and revised return of income after obtaining Form No.10CCB. The initial assessment year was 2009-10 for claiming deduction u/s 80IA and the assessee was continuously enjoying the deduction of u/s 80IA merely for non filing of Form No.10CCB within the due date does not bar to claim for deduction by the assessee. He relied on the judgment of the Hyderabad Bench in the case of Delhi MSW Solutions Ltd., in ITA No.888/Hyd/2019 and he also filed paper book containing page No.34 and in addition to the above case laws, he also relied on the following judgments:- (i) CIT Vs. ACE Multitaxes Systems Pvt. Ltd., (ii) CIT Vs. Lakhwinder Singh 7. The ld.DR relied on the order of the CIT(A) and he submitted that the assessee did not file Form No.10CCB along with the original return of income. The provision of sec.80 A is very clear that for claiming deduction Under chapter VI-A in certain cases, the return should be filed within the due date as per sec. 139(1), whereas the assessee did not file Form No.10CCB and later on, he filed revised return of income . Therefore, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e u/s 115JB at Rs. ,5,09,10,210/- The revised return was processed u/s 143(1) on 20.08.2017 which resulted in the disallowance u/s 801A(4) of Rs. 19,18,68,986/-, thus resulting in the income of Rs. 19,24,14,160/- (after rounding of). The appellant filed an application u/ s. 154 which was rejected and further a grievance petition was filed on 29.01.2018 in which it was stated to the appellant that the return has been filed after the due date of filing of return. For such an action, the appellant has stated that the adjustment has been prescribed from only A. Y. 2017-18 and therefore could not have been done for the present year, this contention of the appellant is rejected accordingly as the adjustment are not prescribed as per law and therefore to presume that an adjustment could have been done only in A. Y. 2017-18 is incorrect presumption and is rejected accordingly. The appellant noted that as the revised return has been processed and the original return was on time, therefore the appellant was eligible for deduction u/ s. 80 IA in view of various judicial rulings with regard to 80AC, which places the clauses for the denial of deduction, if the returns are not filed with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te when the original return is filed. The CIT(A) allowed the claim and the Department preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT Kolkata. The Hon'ble ITAT in their order DCIT Vs Mackintosh Burn Ltd, Kolkata, in ITA No. 7901Kol/2014, dt: 15.03.2017, after considering the decisions of other judicial bodies dismissed the appeal of the department. The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced hereunder: "We have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. The facts stated hereinabove remained undisputed and 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 1 OA(1A) of the Act states....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the assessee. The Ld. DR did not refute any of the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) by producing any cogent material or contrary evidence and the submissions made by the Ld. AR before us. In view of our aforesaid acts and findings and respectfully following the Judicial precedents relied upon hereinabove, We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the same is hereby upheld. Appeal of revenue is dismissed. In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed. In the above case, the assessee was allowed deduction u/s. 80 IA merely on the fact that the return was filed within the due date and in spite of the fact that the claim u/s. 801A was made for the first time in the revised return. In the instant case, the appellant had claimed the deduction u/s 801A in the original return and only revised it subsequently. The assessee did not file the Form No.10CCB during the course of filing the original return but filed it subsequently in the revised return. Therefore, the case of the appellant is much better than of the issue discussed above, wherein the claim was made for the first time in the revised return and therefore in that case 1OCCB obviously was filed for the first ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant in connection with the delay in filing of appeal, the delay is condoned and the appeal is decided on the merits as follows. The appellant has filed an appeal on account of disallowance u/s 80 IA while processing u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the AO. The appellant has filed a return for A. Y. 2016-17 on 14.10.2016 which was within the due date of the filing of the return. The appellant had declared an income of Rs. 5,43,660/- after claiming deduction u/s. 801A of Rs. 19,02,51,433/ - and further offered income u/s 11 5JB at Rs. 5,34,33,460/-. The appellant further filed a revised return on 28.12.2016 declaring an income of Rs. 5,45,170/- after revising the deduction u/ s. 801A to Rs. 19,18,68,986/- u/s. 801A of the Income Tax Act and income u/s 115JB at Rs. ,5,09,10,210/- The revised return was processed u/s 143(1) on 20.08.2017 which resulted in the disallowance u/s 801A(4) of Rs. 19,18,68,986/-, thus resulting in the income of Rs. 19,24,14,160/- (after rounding of). The appellant filed an application u/ s. 154 which was rejected and further a grievance petition was filed on 29.01.2018 in which it was stated to the appellant that the return has been filed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....u/s 801A, the assessee is simply required to file the return of income u/s 139(1) and the claim can be made in the revised return of income also i.e. there is no bar for making the claim even in the return of income filed u/s 139 (5) of the IT Act. The identical issue came up before the Hon'ble ITAT Kolkata in the case of DCIT Vs Mackintosh Burn Ltd, Kolkata, The said assessee filed its return of income on 29.11.2006, u/s 139(1) of the ITAct declaring taxable income at Rs. 15.27 Crores, subsequently, the assessee filed revised return u/ s 139(5) claiming the deduction u/ s 801A at Rs. 9.44 Crores. The AO disallowed the claim stating that there is no claim in the return filed u/ s 139( 1) as CA's certificate in Form No.1 OCCB was not obtained on the date when the original return is filed. The CIT(A) allowed the claim and the Department preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT Kolkata. The Hon'ble ITAT in their order DCIT Vs Mackintosh Burn Ltd, Kolkata, in ITA No. 7901Kol/2014, dt: 15.03.2017, after considering the decisions of other judicial bodies dismissed the appeal of the department. The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced hereunder: "We have hear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....due date of filing the return for the relevant year and claimed deduction u/ s. 1OA of the Act in its revised return. The case before the Hon'ble Special Bench was that the assessee had filed the return itself after the due date of filing the return and hence, the Hon'ble Special bench decided the issue against the assessee, which is not the case of the assessee before us. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) had made the very same observation after interpreting the section 80AC of the Act [similar to proviso to sec. 10 A(1A) i,e, claim of section 801A, shall be allowed if return is furnished before the due date offihing the return and held that the assessee is squarely entitled for deduction u/s 801A of the Act as all the conditions therein were duly fulfilled by the assessee. The Ld. DR did not refute any of the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) by producing any cogent material or contrary evidence and the submissions made by the Ld. AR before us. In view of our aforesaid acts and findings and respectfully following the Judicial precedents relied upon hereinabove, We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the same is hereby upheld. Appeal of revenue is dismissed. In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quote hon'ble apex court's landmark decision in IKV Pillai vs. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 411 (SC) to express our complete agreement with the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion treating the assessee eligible for the impugned relief. Asseessee's sole substantive grievance to this effect allowed for statistical purposes therefore. The assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purpose." 10. Considering the above judgment, since the assessee had filed its return of income before the due date, as specified u/s 139(1) of the Act for the relevant asst. year and in the return of income he has also claimed deduction. The tax Auditor has also certified the deduction claimed as per Sl.No.33 of the Form No.3CD therefore, only for want of not filing Form NO.10CCB within the due date the claim of deduction should not be disallowed, to which, the assessee had filed revised return within the due date. In view of this, the assessee is eligible to claim deduction u/s 80IA. Whenever the assessee received Form No.10CCB, he revised his return of income. 11. We further observed from the order of the lower authorities that the quantum of deductions has not been examined, therefore, for determination of....