TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 773
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....S/250/2019-20/1025549663(1) dated 21.02.2020, which in turn arise out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), dated 23.08.2017. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are as follows: "(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance made by the AO of Rs.18,93,63,796/- on account of deduction claimed u/s 80IA of the Act as the assessee company has filed its return of income on 26.10.2012 which is after the specified due date u/s 139(1) of the Act, i.e. 30.09.2012 without appreciating the meaning and applicability of section 80AC of the I.T. Act. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act. The assessee also requested to provide the reason recorded for reopening of the case. Therefore, the reason recorded for reopening the assessment was provided to the assessee vide letter dated 14.06.2016. The assessee vide its letter dated 08.08.2017 submitted an objection on reopening of the case for the year under consideration. The objections raised vide letter dated 08.08.2017 by the assessee company were found to be untenable, accordingly the objections raised by it have been disposed of vide order dated 09.08.2017, a copy of order was served to the assessee. 4. The details and other documents filed and furnished during the course of assessment proceedings have been scrutinized by the assessing off....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3. CIT v. S Venkataiah [ITA No. 114 of 2013] Appellant has also submitted that where divergent views are available & there is no direct decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, the view in favour of assessee has to be followed as per CIT Vs Vegetable Products, 88 ITR 192 (SC). This being the situation in instant case, where divergent decisions are there and no direct decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court is there, following CIT vs Vegetable Products decision, view in favour of the appellant is taken and the deduction u/s 80IA directed to allowed. Ground No.2 to 5 are therefore allowed." 6. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 7. Learned Departmental....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsel submits before us that various Audit report in support of claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act were obtained by due date but return could not be filed within the time limited prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act, for the following reasons: (1) Assessee's CA Saurin Shah was busy with the medical procedures of his mother who was having Cancer that was detected during relevant period. Copies of medical reports already provided to AO vide letter dated 12.02.2016. (2) Further, main director of the company remained out of country for considerable time. Copies of passport pages were already provided to AO vide letter dated 12.02.2016. (3) Assessee was dealing with number of client and they were supposed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arrived at by the CIT(A) are, therefore, correct and admit no interference by us. We, approve and confirm the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. 12. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 13. Now, coming to the Cross Objection (in CO No.11/SRT/2020) for AY.2012-13 wherein the assessee raised the following grounds: "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Assessing officer in reopening the assessment u/s 147 after issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act and passing the re-assessment order. 2. It is therefore prayed that assessment framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act may kindly be quashed. ....