TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 1556
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(CPC), Bengaluru u/s 143(1) of the Act vide intimation dt. 30/04/2020, wherein the claim of the assessee of carry forward of loss to subsequent year was rejected on the ground that the return was filed on 01/11/2019. 4. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) simply dismissed the appeal of the assessee by confirming the order of the Assessing Officer on the ground that the return was filed beyond the due date and, therefore, credit of carry forward loss of Rs. 72,96,596/- was not available to the assessee as per the provisions of the Act. 4. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The undisputed facts are that the assessee had filed its return of income on 01/11/2019 as is apparent from the copy of acknowledgement furnished by the assessee. We observe from the said acknowledgement filed by the assessee that the same was delayed by 2 minutes 7 seconds. The assessee submitted before us that on the last date of filing, the system/portal of the Income Tax Department was overloaded and was not accepting the return despite the fact that but the assessee tried diligently to upload the same. The ld. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 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 should be eschewed and a justice oriented approach should be adopted and a party should not be made to suffer on account of technicalities." 24. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Cosme Matias Menezes (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [379 ITR 31] observed a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w 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 non- speaking 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 01.11.2004. It is only because he was sent from one room to the other and had to wait in long queues that he could not present the return at the counter which was receiving the returns prior to 6.00 p.m. on that date. We feel that sufficient cause has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 the ground that assessee had not filed the return within specified time u/s 139(1), because as per records the return was filed on 1-10-2009 and not on 30-9-2009. He did not accept the assessee's contention that the return was actually uploaded ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 much as she was not justified to hold that the benefit of Section 80-IC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 shall not be available as the requirem....