M/S. BHATEWARA ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1423/PUN/2017Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 May 2022AY 2011-123 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision to reject the Section 80IB(10) deduction claim. It was held that filing the return within the due date is a mandatory condition for claiming deductions under Chapter VIA, citing relevant case law.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80IB(10) for a housing project. The lower authorities rejected the claim because the return of income was not filed within the due date prescribed under Section 139(1). The assessee's application for condonation of delay before the CBDT was also rejected.

What were the issues?

Whether the requirement of filing a return within the due date under Section 139(1) is mandatory for claiming deduction under Section 80IB(10). Whether the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay in filing the return.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80IB(10),Section 139(1),Section 80A(5),Section 80AC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AA BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI S.S. GODARA & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

For Appellant: Shri Hari Krishan
For Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Hearing: 25.04.2020Pronounced: 04.05.2020

BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/s. Bhatewara Associates Deputy Commissioner of Manik Silver Garden Area Income Tax, Circle -9 Near Kamat Hospital Vs. Pune Chinchwad Pune 411033 PAN – AAKFB2742G Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri Hari Krishan Respondent by: Shri S.P. Walimbe Date of Hearing: 25.04.2020 Date of Pronouncement: 04.05.2020 O R D E R

Per S.S. Godara, JM

1.

This assessee’s appeal for AY 2011-12 is against the order of the CIT(A) 6, Pune dated 31.03.2017 passed in case No. PN/CIT(A)-V/DCIT Cir- 9/368/2014-15 involving proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in short the Act.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2. The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal: - “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the disallowance of claim made by the appellant u/s 80IB(10) overlooking the fact that this claim is in respect of housing project completed by the appellant and M/s Sanghvi Premises (P) Ltd. as per the joint venture agreement executed under principal to principal basis and most importantly allowing the said claim in the hands of M/s . Sanghvi Premises (P) Ltd.

2.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and as assumed by the CIT(A) that this arrangement of joint venture is in the nature of AOP nonetheless the 80IB(10) claim should not have been denied.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the claim made u/s 80IB(10) by assigning the reasons such as obtaining ULC certificate, commencement certificate etc in the name of the appellant one of the associates overlooking the fact that the housing project is taken up and completed by the appellant and M/s Sanghvi Premises (P) Ltd. in their joint venture.

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ld. CIT(A) has erred in assuming and holding that these are two different undertakings/projects, one by M/s Sanghvi Premises (P) Ltd. and second by the appellant.

5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) has erred in denying the deduction claimed u/s 80IB(10) on ground that the return of income has not been filed within the due date U/S 139(1) as required by section 80AC, refusing to accept the sufficient and reasonable cause occurred in filing the return late and further not appreciating the settled legal position that requirement of filing the return before the due date U/S 80AC is directory and not mandatory.”

3.

It is sufficiently clear from the assessee’s averments that the learned lower authorities have declined to entertain its Section 80IB(10) deduction claim for the reason that the same had not been raised in its return filed within the “due date” prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Act. And that the learned lower authorities quote Sections 80A(5) r.w.s. 80AC of the Act. Case law (2019) 107 taxmann.com 220 (Mum) EBR Enterprises vs. Union of India holds that filing of such return under Section 139(1) for claiming Chapter VIA deduction is very much a mandatory condition. We thus adopt stricter direction in light of Commissioner of Customs vs. Dilip Kumar (2018) 9 SCC (FB) and affirm learned lower authorities action rejecting the impugned deduction claimed.

4.

Learned counsel next invited our attention to the assessee’s petition dated 23.04.2022 that it had filed an application before the CBDT under Section 119(2)(b) seeking condonation of delay in filing the above statutory return. He clarified that the Board had rejected the same on 11.10.2019. And that the assessee’s Writ Petition No. 1394 of 2021 challenging the same is pending for final adjudication before the hon'ble jurisdictional high court. He therefore sought adjournment to await its final outcome. We find no merit in assessee’s instant adjournment request as its return is found to have been filed well beyond the “due date” prescribed in Section 139(1) of the Act. The assessee’s foregoing pleas fail accordingly.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is dismissed.

More judgments on Section 80IB(10)

All 838 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80IB(10) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →