R- PAC (INDIA ) PRIVATE LIMTIED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 11(1)(1), MUMBAI

The only effective ground raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of DDIT CPC in rejecting the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80JJAA of the Act.

In this regard, we have heard counsels for both the parties, perused the material placed on record, judgments cited before us and the orders passed by the revenue authorities. From the records, we noticed that the assessee had filed its return of income on 31.12.2023 thereby claiming deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act of Rs. 47,30,484/- and also filed Form- DA to claim said deduction on 30.12.2023. It is important to mention that the claim of deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act had already been reported in Clause – 33 of tax audit report filed on 30.12.2023. 4. However, the said deduction was denied on the ground that assessee had filed return belated i.e 31.12.2023 whereas the due date was 30.11.2023. 5. After having gone through the entire facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered

Even Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Trustee of Tulsidas Gopalji Charitable and Chaleshwar Temple Trust Vs. CIT (207 ITR 368) (Bom) (HC) has held as under:

"On a careful reading of section 139 we are of the clear opinion that sub sections (1) and (4) of section 139 have to be read together and on such a reading, the inevitable conclusion is that a return made within the time specified in sub-section (4) has to be considered as having been made within the time prescribed in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 139. In other words, if a return is filed within the time specified in sub section (4) of section 139 and the option contemplated by the Explanation to section 11(1) is exercised in writing along with such return, the requirements of the Explanation to section 11(1) would stand satisfied," We also draw strength from the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Sukhkarta Developers and Builders Vs PCIT (Nagpur) (Trib) 596 & 597/Nag/2016 dated 01/08/2018 wherein it was held as under: "12. From the above exposition from the Honble juri ictional High Court which duly has the mandate from the Hon'ble Apex Court, it transpires that the submission of return within time as specified under sub section (4) of section 139 has to be taken as sufficient compliance for the provision of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it was expounded that the sub section (1) and sub section (4) of section 139 have to be read together and, hence, it is the inevitable conclusion that a return made

Thus, as per the facts of the present case, although, the assessee has filed the audit report in time but belated filed return of income, therefore, after considering the legal proposition as laid down in the aforementioned orders/judgments by different judicial authorities, we are of the view that the provision of filing of return of income U/s 139(1) are directory in nature and thus return filed U/s 139(4) of the Act is to be treated as ‘sufficient compliance’ as has been held by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Sukhkarta Developers and Builders Vs. PCIT in ITA Nos. 596 & 597/Nag/2016 dated 01.08.2018. Wherein it was categorically held that claim of the assessee cannot be disallowed U/S 80TB of the Act only on the ground that the return of income was filed beyond the period stipulated U/s 139(1) of the Act. The submission of return within time as specified under sub- section (4) of Section 139 has to be taken as ‘sufficient compliance’ under the provisions of the Act as it was expounded that sub-section (1) and sub-section (4) of 6 R-Pac (India) Pvt Ltd., Mumbai.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed.

उप/सहायक पंजीकार ( Asst.