R.THIRUNAVUKKARASU,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, TRICHY

आयकर अपील सं./ Year: 2011-12 Shri R. Thirunavukkarasu, Vs. The ACIT, No.29, Highways Colony, Circle III, Subramaniapuram, Trichy Trichy – 620 020. PAN: AABPT 7822L (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri N. Arjun Raj, CA ��यथ� क� ओर से /Respondent by : Shri J. Pavitran Kumar, JCIT सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 12.09.2019 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement : 03.12.2019 आदेश / O R D E R PER SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

The assessee filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Trichy in 14/CIT(A)/Try dated 09.04.2014 for the assessment year 2011-12.

2 - admitting an income of Rs.75,74,670/- after claiming deduction under Chapter VIA at Rs.33,20,172/-, which included power generation income claimed as an exempt income at Rs.31,75,365/-. The CPC passed an order U/s.143(1) dated 12.10.2011, wherein the assessee’s claim U/s.80IA at Rs.31,75,365/- was disallowed. Aggrieved against that order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A).

2.1 The ld.CIT(A) held that the assessee filed a belated return with a delay of 25 days from the due date of filing the return U/s.139(1). To claim any exemption particularly U/s.80IA, the return has to be filed well within the due date along with the statutory audit report as mandated and required. Since, the assessee has not filed the return before the due date for filing the return, the denial of benefit of deduction U/s.80IA by the CPC is well justified and hence, he dismissed the assessee’s appeal. Aggrieved against that order, the assessee filed this appeal.

3 - processing the return, the CPC had mechanically rejected the assessee’s claim U/s.80IA on the presumption that the return of income was filed belatedly by 25 days, treating the due date for filing the return of income as 31st July 2011. In view of the provisions of Section 80IA(7), the assessee got its accounts audited, therefore the actual due date for filing the return shall be 30.09.2011, in accordance with Explanation to Section 139(1). In the assessee’s case, the accounts were audited under the provisions of Section 80IA(7). Therefore, the due date for filing the return shall be 30th September. Further, it was submitted that in the Form No.ITR-4 specified for the assessment year 2011-12 had audit information U/s.44AA & 44AB only. Therefore, the assessee mentioned that it is not liable to be audited U/s.44AA & 44AB, as the case may be. The form did not have any provision for the audit information undertaken under other provisions like 80IA(7). Therefore, it was submitted that the assessee has not committed any mistake in the return of income filed by him. In this regard, the ld.AR invited our attention to the copy of Form ITR-4 placed on record. This factual aspects was neither considered nor an opportunity was granted to the assessee before processing the intimation U/s.143(1), wherein the deduction claimed U/s.80IA was rejected. Per contra, the ld.DR supported the order of the ld.CIT(A).

4 - 4. We heard the rival submissions. From the above facts, it is clear that the assessee had made due compliance as per the requirements specified in the return form as it existed at that time. Therefore, there is no fault on the assessee side. Therefore, we deem it fit that this issue is remitted back to the Assessing Officer for due examination and verification. If the assessee’s claim is found to be correct, then, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction claimed U/s.80IA.

Order pronounced in the Court on 3rd December, 2019 in Chennai.