HUSSEIN ISMAIL DAWOODANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CPC BANGALORE, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7466/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 January 2017AY 2011-123 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that disallowing a deduction under Section 80IB merely because the return was filed belatedly (under Section 139(4)) is not permissible under Section 143(1) as it is a debatable issue. The disallowance made by the AO was beyond the scope of Section 143(1).

What were the facts?

The assessee filed their income tax return after the due date specified in Section 139(1) but before the extended time under Section 139(4). The Assessing Officer disallowed a deduction under Section 80IB.

What were the issues?

Whether a deduction under Section 80IB can be disallowed solely on the ground that the return of income was filed after the due date under Section 139(1) but within the time allowed under Section 139(4), and if such disallowance is within the scope of Section 143(1).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80IB,Section 139(1),Section 139(4),Section 80AC,Section 143(1)

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, “H” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Syed Nadeem Ahmed
For Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR
Hearing: 09.01.2017Pronounced: 18.01.2017

सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 09.01.2017 घोषणा की तायीख /Date of Pronouncement : 18.01.2017 आदेश / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: There are two appeals under consideration. Both these appeals are filed by the assessee involving the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13. Since, the issues raised in these appeals are identical / inter-connected, therefore, for the sake of convenience, they are clubbed, heard combinedly and disposed of in this consolidated order. Appeal wise adjudication is given in the following paras of this order.

2.

The solitary issue involved in both the appeals relates to the allowability of deduction u/s 80IB of the Act when the return of income is not filed within the due date provided u/s 139(1) of the Act and when the return is actually filed before the time provided u/s 139(4) of the Act. The provisions of section 80AC are relied on by the Revenue.

3.

Before us, at the outset, Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue now stands covered in favour of the assessee considering the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Trustees of Tulsidas Gopalji Charitable & Chaleshwar Temple Trust (207 ITR 368) (Bom.). It was demonstrated before us that the said issue is actually covered by the said judgment and was decided in favour of the assessee. The same was repeatedly relied upon by the Tribunal also while adjudicating the identical issues in various decisions. Bringing our attention to an order of the Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. M/s. Uma Developers in (AY 2012-13), dated 10.8.2016, Ld Counsel for the assessee brought to our notice para 2.1 and para 3.4.2 of the said Tribunal’s order to demonstrate the identical nature of the issue and requirement of deciding the issue in favour of the assessee.

4.

We have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the Revenue Authorities as well as the cited decision of the Tribunal in the case of Uma Developers (supra). On perusal of the said Tribunal’s order, we find, para 3.4.2 is relevant to the issue under consideration. Considering the importance of the said para and for the sake of completeness of this order, the said para 3.4.2 is extracted as under:-

“3.4.2 On an appreciation of the finding rendered by the Ld CIT (A) while allowing the assessee’s appeal (supra), we observe that the Ld CIT (A) has considered at length the issue of whether the AO’s disallowance of the assessee’s claim for deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act for the reason that the return of income for AY 2012-13 was filed beyond the due date stipulated under section 139(1) of the Act (but was filed within the time allowed under section 139(4) of the Act), on view of the provisions of section 80AC of the Act is beyond the scope of the provisions of section 143(1) of the Act. We concur with the view of the Ld CIT (A) that as per the ratio of the decisions of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the Trustees of Tulsidas Gopalji Charitable & Chaleswar Temple Trust (supra) and of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Yash Developers (supra), even in cases where the return of income is filed beyond the due date stipulated under section 139(1) of the Act, the deduction should not be disallowed under section 143(1) of the Act merely in view of the provisions of section 80AC of the Act. We also find on a perusal f the provisions of section 143(1) of the Act, that the AO’s Action in disallowing the assessee’s claim for deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act, since the return of income was filed beyond the period stipulated under section 139(1) of the Act in view of the provisions of section 80AC, is beyond the scope of section 143(1) since there is neither an arithmetical error nor an incorrect claim apparent from the record. In this view of the mater, we uphold the finding of the learned CIT (A) that the AO was not justified in disallowing the assessee’s claim for deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act and his direction to the AO to delete the disallowance thereof, made under section 143(1)(a) / 143(1) of the Act. Consequently, Revenue’s grounds of appeal are dismissed.”

5. From the above, the Tribunal has relied on the cited judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court (supra) and held where the return of income is filed beyond the due date stipulated u/s 139(1) of the Act, the deduction should not be disallowed

More judgments on Section 80IB

All 1,094 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80IB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →