TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1053
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as filed belatedly i.e. beyond the prescribed date of 31.10.2019. 3. Before the Ld. Addl / JCIT(A) it was submitted that the original return was uploaded on the income tax e-filing website on 31.10.2019 before 00:00 hours. However, due to technical glitches and rush hours, the e-filing was processed and generated the acknowledgement i.e. ITR-V at 00:00:02 hours i.e. by delay of two seconds beyond due date. Due to the above, the date of filing of return has appeared on the acknowledgement as 1st November, 2019. It was submitted that in Form ITR at filing status it shows that the return has been filed within time. However, the CPC has considered the same as filed u/s 139(4) and not u/s 139(1) of the Act, therefore, the said return of income filed by the assessee is not a belated return. It was accordingly argued that the return of income may be treated as within time. 4. Based on the arguments advanced by the assessee, the Ld. Addl / JCIT(A) held that the return of income has been filed in time and therefore the assessee is entitled to claim the benefit of carry forward of loss. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. Addl / JCIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tes and allowed the claim of the assessee u/s 80IB(10) of the Act by treating the return as filed within due date. 10. Referring to the decision of Kolkata SMC Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Jeevandarshi Marketing Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO vide ITA No.509/Kol/2022, for assessment year 2019-20, order dated 28.11.2022, he submitted that the Tribunal in the said decision has held the delay in filing of the return of income by 2 minutes 7 seconds as filed within time on account of technical glitches / malfunctioning in the system / portal of the Income Tax Department for which the assessee cannot be penalized. Relying on various other decisions, he submitted that since the delay in the instant case is only 02 seconds which is due to technical glitches and rush hours in the portal of the income tax department, therefore, the assessee should not be penalized and the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) was fully justified in allowing the claim of the assessee in carrying forward of business loss. 11. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO/CPC and the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er has quantified allowable deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act, made disallowance u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act, disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act, disallowance of business promotion expenses. Apart from these disallowances the Assessing Officer considered even the suomoto adjustments i.e., the disallowance of Rs..4.0572 crores as made by the assessee in its revised return of income for disallowance while computing the income by the Assessing Officer. This shows the Assessing Officer in fact partly acted upon the revised return filed by considering the adjustments as made by the assessee for disallowance in the revised return. The Assessing Officer further conveniently ignored the deductions of Rs..8.165 crores claimed by the assessee in the revised return of income. 23. As far as the technical glitch and last hour rush and consequently whether the return filed by the assessee with a delay of two minutes can be considered as the return filed in time is concerned, in the case of Bombay Mercantile Co-op. Bank Ltd., v. CBDT [322 ITR 87] the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court held as under: "8. It is well settled that in matters of condonation of delay a highly pedantic approach sho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....raised before us by the learned counsel for the respondent have specifically and categorically been rejected by the Karnataka High Court and the same have been accepted not only by the Board, but also by the Ministry of Law. We notice that a similar view has also been taken by the Bombay High Court in the case of Sitaldas K. Motwani v. Director General of Income-tax (International Taxation): 187 Taxman 44 (Bom). Consequently, agreeing with the Karnataka High Court, we are of the view that the Board has the power under Section 119 (2) to condone the delay in the case of a return which is filed late and where a claim for carry forward of losses is made. 8. Coming back to the facts of the present case, we find that the impugned order under Section 119 passed by the Board is a nonspeaking one. Normally, we would have remanded the matter to the Board to consider the application of the petitioner afresh. However, we find that in the present case, the delay is only of one day and the circumstances have been explained and have not been controverted by the respondents. The fact of the matter is that the petitioner did reach the Central Revenue Building before the closure of the counter on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erests of justice would be served better, in condoning the delay. In the instant case, there is no dispute or denial of the fact that the Return of Income filed by the Respondent/Assessee for the Assessment Year 2010-11, has been uploaded sometime past 00.00 hours on 15.10.2010. One can take judicial notice of the fact that uploading of Return requires not only an effort but also consumes sometime. If the Assessee has encountered certain hardship or difficulty in uploading his return, as alleged by him due to a technical snags in the website of the Income Tax Department due to the last hour rush of filing of Returns, the delay deserves to be condoned." 27. We observed that the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO v. Mantangi Rubber Pvt. Ltd., in ITA.No. 4498/Del/2013 dated 29.05.2015 considered a situation where there was a delay of 46 minutes in uploading the e-return and the Tribunal condoned the delay observing as under: - "2. Brief facts of the care are that as per AO, e-return of income, declaring Nil income, was filed with acknowledgement no. 982454810111009 on 1-10-2009, after claiming deduction u/s 80IC of Rs. 2,34,41,162/-. The AO denied deduction u/s 80IC on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....u/s 80IB. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in deleting the addition the addition without giving AO opportunity for rebut as per rule 46A, as no remand report was called for in respect of verifying the electronic trial of filling the return from DIT (Systems). 4. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous and is not tenable on the facts and in law. 5. That the grounds of Appeal are without prejudice to each other. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, to alter, or amend on the ground of at the appeal raised above at the time of hearing. 5. The assessee has filed cross-objection, taking following grounds: (1) That the order dated 06-06-2013 passed u/s 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) IX, New Delhi is against law and facts on the file in as much as she was not justified to set aside the assessment and restore the matter back to the file of Ld Assessing Officer. (2) That the order dated 06-06-2013 passed u/s 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the Learned Commissioner of Income- Tax (Appeals) IX, New Delhi is against law and facts on the file in as mu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of AO for examining the assessee's claim u/s 80IC." 28. In view of the above judicial pronouncements and also taking note of the fact that the delay is only of two minutes which was caused due to technical glitch and last hour of rush in the website, we direct the Assessing Officer to treat the original return filed by the assessee for the A.Y. 2014-15 as filed in time and consequently to consider the revised return of income filed by the assessee for the purpose of computing the income of the assessee. 29. Coming to Ground No. 2(a) of grounds of appeal, assessee challenged the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance of deduction claimed u/s. 80IB of the Act. 30. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the Assessing Officer though quantified the amount of deduction allowable u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act ignored the deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act for the reason that the original return according to the Assessing Officer was not filed within the time prescribed and therefore assessee is not entitled for the deduction. 31. On the other hand, Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below. 32. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... total claim made at Rs..8,12,78,353/-. In effect the Assessing Officer allowed the claim for deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act by restricting the same to Rs..6,93,86,043/-. However, this was not allowed as deduction while computing the income as the original return was not filed within time. Since, we have directed the Assessing Officer to consider the original return filed with a delay of two minutes due to technical glitch as the return filed in time, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction as quantified by him in the Assessment Order at Rs..6,93,86,043/. Thus, Ground No.2(a) is allowed." 13. We find the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of The Khedbrahma Taluka Primary Teachers Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. vs. ADIT (supra) while considering the delay of 4 minutes 42 seconds in uploading the return of income held that the return was filed in time and the CPC is not correct in denying the claim of deduction u/s 80P of the Act to the assessee under 143(1)(a)(v) proceedings. The relevant observations of the Tribunal from para 8 onwards read as under: "8. We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the materials available on record. It is an und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee. It could be seen that the assessee tried to upload the return for 21 hours on 31.10.2019 and ultimately got successful in filing the return of income past midnight and accordingly, the delay of 12 minutes and 31 second occurred due to which the return of income was tagged as belated return. We fail to understand as to how the assessee could be termed as defaulter in such a case and what the assessee would have gained by filing the return of income with such a minor delay. It is also not the case of the revenue that the assessee is not entitled for carry forward of losses. 4. On the given facts, the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in Regen Infrastructure & Services (P.) Ltd. V/s CBDT (68 Taxmann.com 93) as affirmed by division bench (75 Taxmann.com 135) is squarely applicable to the facts of the case. The Hon'ble Court, under similar circumstances, condoned the delay of one day and held that the petitioner had successfully explained the delay in filing the return on 16.10.2010 instead of 15.10.2010. Further, it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner is not entitled to claim the carry forward loss under Section 139(3) of the Act. When the ....