IG3 INFRA LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1406/CHNY/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 June 2022AY 2012-132 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the AO. This was based on a High Court order that condoned the delay in filing the return.

What were the facts?

The assessee was denied deduction under Section 80-IB for AY 2012-13 due to a belated return, invoking Section 80AC. This denial was confirmed by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80-IB when the return was filed belatedly and the delay was condoned by the High Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80-IB,Section 80AC,Section 119(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar (Advocate) – Ld. AR, Shri. Kumar Ajeet (CIT) – Ld. DR
For Respondent: Shri. Kumar Ajeet (CIT) – Ld. DR

आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)

1.

Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Chennai [CIT(A)] dated 18.04.2017 in the matter of assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 25.03.2015. In the assessment, the assessee was denied deduction u/s 80-IB invoking the provisions of Sec. 80AC in view of the fact that the return was filed belatedly. The action of Ld. AO was confirmed by Ld. CIT(A).

2.

The Ld. AR, placed on record the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in assessee’s WP No.21829 of 2016 & WMP No.18688 of 2016 dated 30.01.2020 to support the case of the assessee. It has been submitted that the application for condonation as field by the assessee u/s 119(2) was rejected by CBDT which was challenged by the assessee successfully in the aforesaid Writ jurisdiction. The concluding para-33 & 34 of the order read as under: - 33. In the light of the above observation, I set aside the impugned order and direct the 1st respondent Deputy Commissioner of Income tax to examine the claim of the petitioner on merits as to whether the petitioner was otherwise entitled to the benefit of deduction under Section 80IAB of the Income Tax, 1961. 34. Since the disputes pertains to the Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2103-14, the 1st respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders on merits, after examining the claim of the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The Ld. Sr. Dr could not controvert the said position.

3.

In view of the Writ order of Hon’ble High Court of Madras condoning the delay, the impugned order is set-aside and the appeal is restored back to the file of Ld. AO to carry-out the directions of Hon’ble Court as above.

4.

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 08th June, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) उपा34 /VICE PRESIDENT लेखा सद< / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे-ई / Chennai; िदनांक / Dated : 08-06-2022 JPV JPV JPV JPV आदेश की Xितिलिप अ9ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��यथ�/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु� (अपील)/CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयु�/CIT 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध/DR 6. गाड� फाईल/GF

More judgments on Section 80-IB

All 340 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80-IB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →