M/S SHREE GANESH CONCAST GROUP OF INDUSTRIES,KANGRA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, PALAMPUR

आदेश/Order

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 26.03.2018 of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Palampur [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’].

ITA No. 829-Chd-2018- M/s Shree Ganesh Concast Group of Industries, Kangra 2 147/144 and without complying with the mandatory conditions u/s 147/148/151 as envisaged under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

in this appeal has agitated the reopening of the assessment u/s 147 of

the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') as well as the additions

made by the Assessing Officer and further confirmed by the CIT(A) on

merits.

on the validity of re-assessment u/s 147 of the Act. Hence, ground No.2

of the appeal is dismissed as ‘not pressed’.

ITA No. 829-Chd-2018- M/s Shree Ganesh Concast Group of Industries, Kangra 3 6. Now coming to the issues on merits raised vide ground No. 3 & 4

of the appeal, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the

impugned additions have been made by the Assessing Officer by

disallowing the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80IB of the Act.

The Assessing Officer held that the assessee is not entitled to deduction

u/s 80IB of the Act and further the assessee had not filed the return of

income within the stipulated period as provided u/s 139(1) of the Act.

denial of claim of deduction u/s 80IB of the Act is concerned, the

assessee, otherwise, is entitled to deduction u/s 80IC of the Act also.

He has further submitted that even in the subsequent assessment years,

on identical issue, the matter has been restored to the file of the

Assessing Officer with a direction to examine as if the assessee is

entitled to deduction us 80IC of the Act and if found so eligible, allow

the deduction to the assessee accordingly. He has, therefore, submitted

that mere mentioning of wrong section does not disentitle the assessee

from claiming deduction, if the assessee is otherwise eligible, as such

deduction provisions have been enacted for promotion of certain

industries in economic backward area and, hence, are beneficial

provisions.

of income has been filed beyond the period of limitation u/s 139(1) of

ITA No. 829-Chd-2018- M/s Shree Ganesh Concast Group of Industries, Kangra 4 the Act, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that though there

is a delay of only one day in filing the return of income beyond the

period stipulated u/s 139(1) of the Act, however, the return was filed

within the extended period as provided u/s 139 (4) of the Act. That vide

decision of the Coordinate Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case

of ‘Symbiosis Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. vs DCIT’ reported in (2017) 51

CCH 0632 (Chd-Trib), it has been held that the claim of the assessee

of deduction could not be ousted if the return has been filed within the

extended period of sub section (4) of section 139 of the I.T. Act. The

Ld. Counsel, has further submitted that the delay of one day in filing

the return beyond the limitation period prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act

has occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee

and of his counsel. That the counsel for the assessee tried to upload the

return of income on 30.9.2011, which was required to be e-filed,

however, due to technical glitches, the counsel for the assessee could

not upload the return of income. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee in

this respect has relied upon the certain computer generated information

which shows that the counsel for the assessee had tried to upload the

return on 30.9.2011 and an ‘XML’ file was also created. That the

return of income was immediately filed on the next date. The Ld.

Counsel, therefore, has submitted that the assessee could not be denied

deduction for delay of one day in filing the return of income beyond the

ITA No. 829-Chd-2018- M/s Shree Ganesh Concast Group of Industries, Kangra 5 limitation period prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act, which was beyond the

control of the assessee.

lower authorities.

decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of

‘Symbiosis Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT’ (supra), I am of the

view that the delay of 01 day in on-line filing of the return occurred not

due to any negligence of the assessee, rather, the reason for the same

was beyond the control of the assessee. Even otherwise, the return has

been filed within extended period as provided u/s 139(4) of the Act. In

view of this, the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer to

examine the limited aspect as to whether the assessee, otherwise, is

entitled to claim deduction us 80IC of the Act and if so found eligible,

the Assessing Officer will allow the claim accordingly irrespective of

the fact that there was a delay of 01 day in filing the return of income

beyond the prescribed period under the provisions of section 139(1) of

the Act.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for

statistical purposes.

ITA No. 829-Chd-2018- M/s Shree Ganesh Concast Group of Industries, Kangra 6 Order dictated and pronounced in the Open Court immediately on completion of hearing.

Sd/-

(संजय गग� / SANJAY GARG) �या�यक सद�य/ Judicial Member Dated : 06.06.2019 “आर.के.”

आदेशक���त�ल�पअ�े�षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��यथ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�त/ CIT 4. आयकरआयु�त (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. �वभागीय��त�न�ध, आयकरअपील�यआ�धकरण, च�डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड�फाईल/ Guard File

आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायकपंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar