ARAVALI BUILDHOMES LLP,JAIPUR V. AO CPC, JAIPUR

ITA 1154/JPR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Aravali Buildhomes LLP, which appealed against the order of the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Panchkula, confirming the disallowance of a deduction of Rs. 1,27,04,176 under section 80IBA of the Income Tax Act. The deduction was initially denied by the Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore, on the grounds that the return was filed beyond the due date. The assessee argued that the return was filed within the extended deadline due to the COVID-19 pandemic and that substantial compliance was met as the audit report was filed on time. The Tribunal considered various precedents and the specific circumstances of the case, including the impact of the pandemic and the timing of the audit report, and decided in favor of the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 398068 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Other Referred Cases: Symbiosis Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Gemini Communication Ltd. vs. ACIT, Lunidhar Seva Sahkari Mandali Ltd. vs. ASSESSING OFFICER (CPC), B.U. Bhandari Nandgude Patil Associates vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANOOP SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Revised return; Reasonable cause; Corroborative evidences; Bonafide mistake
• Section: 148; 142(1); 54; 139; 234B; 10B; 80IB; 139(5)

Judgement Text

" vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1154/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2021-22 Aravali Buildhomes LLP F. No. 205 Block A, Anukamapa Residency, Durgapura, Jaipur cuke Vs. AO CPC, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABFFA 5163 Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta, Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 09/04/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 04/06/2025 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM By way of present appeal, the assessee challenges the order of the learned Addl./Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Panchkula [ for short CIT(A) ] dated 10/07/2024 for assessment year 2021-22. The said order of the ld. CIT(A) arise as against the order dated 02.11.2022 passed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 [ for short “Act”] by Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore [for short AO]. 2 ITA No. 1154/JP/2024 Aravali Buildhome LLP 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. The impugned assessment order u/s 143(1) dt. 02.11.2022 is, are bad in law, illegal, invalid, void ab-intio on facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction, and also barred by limitation and various other reasons and hence the same may kindly be quashed. 2. Rs.1,27,04,176/-: The Id. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the disallowance/addition of Rs. 1,27,04,176/- made by the Id. AO by denying the deduction claimed u/ s 80IBA, or 80IAB or other on wrong interpretation and not considering the evidences and material in their perspective and sense, without giving any show cause. Hence the addition/ disallowance so made by the AO and confirmed by the Id. CIT(A) is being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts on the record and hence same may kindly be deleted in full. 3. The Id. AO has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging interest u/s 234A,234B and 234C.. The appellant totally denies it liability of charging of any such interest. The interest, so charged, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, may kindly be deleted in full. 4. The appellant prays your honour indulgences to add, amend or alter of or any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing.” 3. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee is a LLP and engaged in the business of real estate. The assessee has filed its return of income declaring the total income of Rs. NIL on 31.03.2022 which was processed as per provision of section 143(1) of the Act on 02.11.2022. While processing that return the income of the assessee was determined at Rs. 1,27,13,930/- and in that processing the deduction u/s. 80IBA of Rs. 1,27,13,930/- claimed by the assessee was 3 ITA No. 1154/JP/2024 Aravali Buildhome LLP denied considering that the return filed by the assessee was beyond the due date. 4. Aggrieved from that intimation passed u/s. 143(1) of the Act the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is reiterated here in below: “7. Decision:- 7.1 On Grounds of Appeal No. 1 &2: These ground of appeal is related to the addition of Rs. 1,27,04,176/-. The assessee contented that he is eligible for claiming deduction of Rs. 1,27,04,176/- u/s 80-IBA of the act. The addition of Rs. 1,27,04,176/- may please be deleted. On perusal of Tax Audit Report, Intimation order uis 143(1) of the act, and the return of income, it is clear that the addition is made by the CPC on disallowance of deduction of Rs. 1,27,04,176/- u/s 80-IBA of the act as the assesseehas failed to file the return of income within due date specified in subsection (1) of Section 139 for Assessment Year 2021-22 (Due date 15-03.2022) for claiming the deduction under Chapter-VI of ITA as per the provisions of Section 80 AC of the Act. The appellant through case laws contended that a return filed under section 139(4) of the Act, commonly referred to as a belated return, should also be considered valid for claiming said deduction. It is essential to clarify here that while returns filed in accordance with the various sections of the Act are deemed valid returns, the key requirement for granting the deduction under Part C of Chapter VIA of the Act is defined in this chapter itself. As per section 80AC (II) of the Act, the return must be filed within the due date specified in Section 139(1) of the Act for claiming any deduction under any provision of Chapter VIA under the heading \"C-Deduction in respect of certain incomes.\" The claim for deduction under Section 80IBA falls under Part C of Chapter VIA of the Act. Therefore, the appellant's argument in this regard cannot be accepted. 4 ITA No. 1154/JP/2024 Aravali Buildhome LLP The provisions laid out in Section 80AC(ii), which came into effect on April 1, 2018, leave no room for ambiguity. They emphatically establish that any deduction sought under Part C of Chapter VIA will be deemed admissible exclusively if the income tax return for that particular case is filed within the prescribed due date. Consequently, no claims under any of the provisions in Part C of Chapter VIA will be entertained in the instance of a belated return. Accordingly this ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. 7.2 On Grounds of Appeal No 3:- This ground of appeal relates to interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C which is mandatory and consequential in nature. Accordingly this ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. 7.3 On Grounds of Appeal No 4: The appellant requested that The Appellant reserves its right to alter/ amend/delete/modify its grounds of appeal stated above. However, no such option was exercised during the appellate proceedings. Therefore, it is clear that this ground of appeal is academic in nature, and no decision is required. For statistical purposes, this ground of appeal is dismissed. 8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.” 5. As the assessee did not find any favour, from the appeal filed before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred the present appeal before this Tribunal on the ground as reproduced hereinabove. To support the various grounds so raised by the assessee, ld. AR of the assessee, has filed the written submissions in respect of the grounds raised by the assessee which reads as follows: GOA:1 and GOA-2 Invalid action u/s 143(1) and addition/disallowance of Rs. 1,27,04,176/- by denying the deduction claimed u/s 80IBA:- FACTS: The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a LLP and engaged in the business of real estate. The assessee has filed its return of income declaring the total income of Rs. NIL on dt. 31.03.2022. Thereafter the assessee has received the intimation u/s 143(1) on dt. 02.11.2022 on perusal of the same it 5 ITA No. 1154/JP/2024 Aravali Buildhome LLP has come to know that the income has been assessed at Rs. 1,27,13,930/-, in which deduction of Rs. 1,27,13,930/- has been denied claimed by the asesssee u/s 80IBA. The assessee had received the information for adjustment for proposed deduction of Rs. 1,27,13,930/- in response thereto assessee had submitted that we claimed deduction u/s 80IBA and there is no specific condition is given u/s 80IBA, therefore deduction claimed in ITR should be allowed. However the same has not been considered in their true perspective and sense. And denied the claim. In first appeal assessee filed the detailed WS and legal position with paper book. However the ld. CIT(A) by observing as under “ as the assessee has failed to file the return of income within due date specified in subsection (1) of Section 139 for Assessment Year 2021-22 (Due date 15- 03.2022) for claiming the deduction under Chapter-VI of ITA as per the provisions of Section 80 AC of the Act. The appellant through case laws contended that a return filed under section 139(4) of the Act, commonly referred to as a belated return, should also be considered valid for claiming said deduction. It is essential to clarify here that while returns filed in accordance with the various sections of the Act are deemed valid returns, the key requirement for granting the deduction under Part C of Chapter VIA of the Act is defined in this chapter itself. As per section 80AC (ii) of the Act, the return must be filed within the due date specified in Section 139(1) of the Act for claiming any deduction under any provision of Chapter VIA under the heading “C-Deduction in respect of certain incomes.” The claim for deduction under Section 80IBA falls under Part C of Chapter VIA of the Act. Therefore, the appellant's argument in this regard cannot be accepted. The provisions laid out in Section 80AC(ii), which came into effect on April 1, 2018, leave no room for ambiguity. They emphatically establish that any deduction sought under Part C of Chapter VIA will be deemed admissible exclusively if the income tax return for that particular case is filed within the prescribed due date. Consequently, no claims under any of the provisions in Part C of Chapter VIA will be entertained in the instance of a belated return. Accordingly this ground raised by the assessee is dismissed.” And hence this appeal. SUBMISSIONS:- 6 ITA No. 1154/JP/2024 Aravali Buildhome LLP 1. Invalid action u/s 143(1):- Firstly it is submitted that the disallowance has been made u/s 143(1) and this is not an adjustment, it is the disallowance of a claim or deduction in a particular section and should not be disallowed u/s 143(1), the deduction if any is to be made only under scrutiny assessment. This is a legal and disputed issue and cannot be taken u/s 143(1). It is the settled legal position of law that u/s 143(1) only prima fasi adjustment can be done and this disallowance is not a prima fasci adjustment. Hence the deduction so denied may kindly be allowed. However the ld. CIT(A) has not speak a single word on our these arguments nor brought any contrary finding on the same. Which shows that he was admits our contention but not considered the same. 2. Further the disallowance u/s 80IBA has been made on account of not filing the return in due date. As in this case the assessee has filed the ITR for this year on dt. 31.03.202 and the due date was 15.03.2022 and there was only delay of 16 days. In this regard it is submitted that the assessee is LLP and claimed deduction u/s 80IBA and in the section 80IBA there was no reference for filling the ITR in due date, however the same is provided u/s 80AC where it has been provided to claim the deduction under chapter VIC the return is required to be filed on or before due date provided u/s 139(1). However in this year there was Covid-19 period and the due date for filling of ITR for this year was 15. 03.2022, and the due date for filling the Audited accounts was 15.02.2022 and the assessee has already filed the audit report on dt. 08.02.2022 and in audit report the claim of deduction of Rs.1,27,13,930/- u/s 80IBA has already been disclosed(VIDE PB40 & 50), which is also before due date of filling of the return. And the assessee has been advised that if the claim has been shown in the audit report, which has been filed before the due date of return filling is allowable. Further the assessee has also under impression that the Honble Supreme Court had extended time limit in some income tax and other mater up to 31.03.2022 and the assessee was also under impression that the time limit for filling the return is also 31.03.2022 and has also been advised to file till 31.03.2022. However the ld. CIT(A) has not considered these argument nor speak a single word against the same. Hence the benefit of these contention should be given here. 3. In the case of Symbiosis Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT IN ITA No 501/CHD/2017 October 4, 2017 (2017) 51 CCH 0632 ChdTrib (2017) 160 DTR 0001 (Chd)(Trib),(2017) 190 TTJ 0518 (Chd). It has been held that 3.1 We have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. A perusal of the record shows that the assessee e- filed its return on 31.03.2014 showing a total income of Rs. 2.71 Crores after claiming deduction 7 ITA No. 1154/JP/2024 Aravali Buildhome LLP under Chapter VI-A (u/s 80IC) of Rs. 1,16,26,310/-. The said claim was supported by audit report in form No. 10CCB under Rule 18BBB of the IT Rules, 1961. The AO considering the fact that the return had not been filed within the time specified u/s 139(1) as admittedly it had been filed within the extended period as specified u/s 139(4). Accordingly, considering the statutory requirement as per provisions of Section 80AC required the assessee to explain the same. The assessee as per the submissions extracted in the assessment order gave the following explanation : “Income tax return along-with statement of income was filed on 31.03.2014 audit report through which we can avail the 80IC deduction is submitted on 28.10.2013. Book profit report in form 29B is submitted on 29.09.2013 and Tax Audit Report in form 3CA/3CD is submitted on 29.09.2013. Moreover, end of the year i.e. March 31 of the relevant A.Y. is also due date u/s 139 without penalty and ITR submitted on 31.03.2014”. 3.2 The record shows that the explanation was rejected by the AO holding as under :- The explanation of the assessee is perused and it shows that the assessee itself admitted that the return of income for the year under consideration was filed beyond due date of filing of return. Moreover, audit report in form no. 10CCB was also filed on 28.10.2013 which is also belated. The assessee claimed that tax audit report in form 3CA & 3CD was filed on 29.09.2013 i.e. with in time. The contention of the assessee is not acceptable because the date of filing of audit report is no concerned with the date of filing of return of income. The provision of section 80AC clearly indicates that the return of income of the assessee who claims deduction u/s 80IC must be furnished on or before due date in the relevant assessment year. The assessee could not justify its claim, hence, deduction u/s 80IC of Rs.1,16,26,310/- is disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee's company. 3.3 The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the CIT(A) who also rejected the claim relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Prakash Nath Khanna. The applicability of the said decision to the facts of the present case is disputed by the ld. AR on the grounds that as per the settled legal position, the Rule of strict interpretation is to be applied to the charging and penal provisions. It has been argued that since Section 80AC and Section 80IC are procedural provisions, the rule of strict and literal interpretation are not to be applied. Attention has been invited to para 20 of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court. The ld. AR has also sought to distinguish the decisions relied upon by the CIT(A). Since these arguments have been elaborated in the earlier part of this order, it is deemed appropriate only to refer to the rebuttal thereof by the ld. 8 ITA No. 1154/JP/2024 Aravali Buildhome LLP CIT-DR. The ld. CIT-DR has placed heavy reliance upon the order of the Chandigarh Bench of the ITAT in the case of Lakshmi Energy & Foods Ltd. The ld. AR apart from relying upon various decisions which have also been elaborated in the earlier part of this order, has sought to invite attention to the order dated 23.02.2017 in the case of Heera Moti Agro Industries (copy placed at pages 108 to 126). Before we refer to those decisions, we take note of the fact that admittedly the Tax Audit Report and the Balance Sheet alongwith annexures were filed within the due date i.e. 29.09.2013 and the report u/s 80IC on form 10CCB was filed on 28.09.2013. These facts are coming from the record itself as extracted in the earlier part of the order from the assessment order. The return admittedly was uploaded only on 31.03.2014 and admittedly was late in terms of Section 139(1), though within the extended time as set out in Section 139(4) as far as the levy of penalty etc. was concerned. Section 80AC of the Income Tax Act specifically lays down that deduction is admissible or in-fact no deduction is permissible unless the return is furnished on or before the due date specified in sub-section (1) of Section 139.For ready reference, said provision of law is hereby reproduced : ”80AC -Where in computing the total income of an assessee of the previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 2006 or any subsequent assessment year, any deduction is admissible under section 80-IA or section 80-IAB or section 80-IB or section 80-IC [or section 80-ID or section 80-IE], no such deduction shall be allowed to him unless he furnishes a return of his income for such assessment year on or before the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139. ” 3.4. We are called upon to decide in the facts of the present case whether the benefit of deduction u/s 80IC in the facts of the present case wherein the assessee admittedly did not file its return within the due date specified under sub- section (1) of Section 139 of the Act and filed it only in the extended period and though within time but in the extended period as set out in sub section (4) of Section 139 of the Act. The consistent claim of the assessee which has not been disputed by the tax authorities or by the ld. CIT-DR is that the return of the assessee was filed well within the extended due date u/s 139(4) i.e. on 29.09.2013. 3.5 We have considered the relevant findings in the assessment order and the impugned order and we find that the relevant documents in support of its claim of deduction were available before the tax authorities well within time namely Book Audit Report in Form No. 29B and Tax Audit Report in Form No. 3CA/3D on 29.09.2013, Audit Report u/s 80IC along with Balance Sheet etc. Consequently, 9 ITA No. 1154/JP/2024 Aravali Buildhome LLP the occasion to consider the possibility and the opportunity to interpolate and fudge up the claim was admittedly not available to the assessee. We note that the respective corresponding figures qua the claim as per the Reports and Balance Sheets remain the same. The legal position referring to various case laws have been addressed by the authorities which we have elaborately discussed in the earlier part of this order. On consideration thereof, we find that the claim of the assessee that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case where the filing of the return was delayed for reasons not attributable to the assessee and all other supporting evidences in the form of audit report u/s 80IC, balance sheet prepared for the purpose of income tax and the requirements of various regulatory authorities were prepared and filed well within time whereas we have noted the figures and amounts in these two fully tally in the light of these facts when considered in context of the principles enunciated by the Courts and the Tribunal, we concur with the arguments that literal interpretation is to be given to the procedural requirements in as much as these provisions being machinery provisions and thus being directory, they do not stand as a bar in the facts of a case wherein it can be demonstrated that there was a justifiable and reasonable cause for delay in filing of the return. The return which is well within the extended period as considered under sub section 4 of Section 139 of the Act, it was submitted, stands on a higher footing, then the return which is filed even beyond this period. The arguments of the Revenue that return filed late can only be considered if the delay is attributable to the Revenue, cannot be concurred with. In the face of decisions which hold that the said provision is a machinery provision, then this interpretation cannot apply only to cases where delay is attributable only to the Revenue. The said interpretation would be universally available as per facts to both the sides. To hold that the cause for delay can be gone into, only if delay is attributable to the Revenue in the facts of the case would necessitate a judicial forum to first require the Department to demonstrate how it can claim itself to be on higher footing qua the tax payer because reasons for delay can be gone into and condoned for adequate reasons demonstrated by the Revenue then even where delay occurs for reasons not attributable to the Revenue also. In the absence of any other argument, we do not see how in the facts as considered by different Courts in the decisions relied upon by the ld. AR, why they should not be applied. Once it has been held that Section 80AC is a machinery provision, then the issue is to be considered in the light of the facts available. The legal position that the relevant provision is a machinery provision, applying the principles that being directory in nature enables the authorities to consider the reasons, consistently on record for late filing of the return. A perusal of the record shows that the affidavit of Shri Jagbir Singh S/o Shri Om Pal, Managing Director of the assessee company is on 10 ITA No. 1154/JP/2024 Aravali Buildhome LLP record. Perusal of the same shows that it has been explained that on account of collusion of the tax consultant i.e. Chartered Accountant Shri A.S.Malhotra in regard to allotment of shares in another company i.e. Saitec Medical Pvt. Ltd. wherein the assessee company had a major share holding resulting in filing of suite before the Company Law Board etc. and in connivance of the Tax Consultant with Mr. Bhalotia and his son who were having minor shareholding in M/s Saitech, the routine exercise normally done by the Tax Consultant without any follow up or supervision as digital signatures had been entrusted to the tax consultant for uploading of documents etc. in the Income Tax Portal, the mischief was occurred. For ready reference, the contents of the affidavit on record are reproduced hereunder : AFFIDAVIT I, Jagbir Singh s/o Sh. Om Pal, Managing Director of Symbiosis Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd., having its Regd. office at SCO 4, Ground Floor, 14, Raghunath Puri, Yamuna Nagar, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under: 1. That I am Managing Director of the Company Symbiosis Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd., Yamuna Nagar. 2. That, the Balance Sheet along with annexures of Symbiosis Pharamaceuticals P Ltd for the year ending 31.3.2013 was signed by the authorized directors and Auditors on 09.08.2013 and the said balance sheet was adopted by the Board of the company. On this very date i.e. 09.08.2013 we handed over the Digital Signatures of the Deponent to our auditor and Tax.Consultant CA A.S. Malhotra for filing Income Tax return and other reports on the Income Tax portal as returns and all audit reports had to be compulsorily e-filed. We came to know about the fact that Tax Audit report and Balance Sheet with annexures were filed on 29-9- 2013 and report u/s 80-IC on Form 10CCB was filed on 28.10.2013 and the return of Income was uploaded only on 31.03.2014. 3. That filing of Income Tax return, audit report etc on Income Tax portal as a matter of routine is handled by Tax Consultant and in our case CA. A.S.Malhotra and as a normal practice digital signatures were also handed over to him alongwith Board Resolution authorizing him to use and affix our Digital Signatures on the documents to be submitted to Income Tax Department. 4. That our aforementioned Company is having 77.30% shares in another Company \"Saitech Medicare Private Limited\". CA. A.S. Malhotra was Auditor of that Company also. Besides Symbiosis Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. and a few other 11 ITA No. 1154/JP/2024 Aravali Buildhome LLP shareholders, this Company is also having two shareholders namely Sh. Rajat Bhalotia and his father Sh. P.D. Bhalotia with 12.66% and 3.82% shares respectively. These shareholders have filed a suit with Company Law Board, Delhi against the major shareholder i.e. Symbiosis Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. and other shareholders including the Deponent. We suspected collusion of our Auditors with these two dissenting shareholders as our Auditor was also Auditor and tax consultant of Wonder Products, Nahan Road, Moginand, Kal Amb, Distt. Nahan; a firm of these two persons/ their family members. The suspicion is on account of the fact that return of Income for the year under consideration was filed late when balance sheet and audit report was filed in time and also he has guided the other directors for filing a suit against the company. 5. That when we received the order of the DCIT in our case for the A.Y. 2013-14 on 16.01.2016; we consulted another CA who told us the intricacies of the order and thereafter we confronted the same with our Tax Consultant CA. A.S. Malhotra; who did not give any satisfactory reply for delay in filing of Income Tax return and we asked for his resignation and changed our consultants as well as Auditors of both the Companies. 'His replies confirmed our suspicions that he is in hand with glove with Mr. Bhalotia and the mischief i.e. non filing of ITR in time was carried on us at the behest of Mr. Bhalotia. 6. That we would also like to add that Bhalotias had filed the case only in July 2015 after we issued Seventy six lakh shares of \"Saitech Medicare Private Limited\" to Symbiosis Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. He was showing his grievances against the allotment since last more than one year before the allotment on some technical grounds which only a professional like a Chartered Accountant is in position to guide. Due to the case filed with Company Law Board; which case has since been transferred to National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in February, 2017; we had not been able to hold AGM of \"Saitech Medicare Private Limited\" since 2015. Whenever we tried to hold AGM; Mr. Bhalotia invoked CLB which restrained us from holding AGM and ultimately we had to give an undertaking to the CLB of not holding any AGM without its permission. 7. That we are not conversant with the Income Tax Act, 1961 hence we had to rely on our consultants. As is a normal practice; Income Tax Consultant prepares and file ITRs on behalf of the assessee. We were also following the instructions of our Tax Consultant and late filing of ITR was not due to any fault of any of the officer of the Company but due to our Tax Consultant. 12 ITA No. 1154/JP/2024 Aravali Buildhome LLP Accordingly, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as we have discussed at length and seen from the record, we are of the view that the delay in filing of the return in the facts of the present case was for reasons beyond the control of the assessee and in fact, there was reasonable cause in the late filing of the return within the extended period as statutorily available under sub-section (4) of Section 139 of the Act. The decision rendered in the case of P.Bhavani, we find, on facts is not applicable and is entirely distinguishable since we concur with the arguments advanced by the ld. AR thereon same are not being repeated here. Similarly, we find that the decision in the case of M/s Lakshmi Energy & Foods Ltd. also has no role to place as in the facts of that case, not only the return was filed beyond the extended period of time statutorily available under sub-section (4) of Section 139 but even otherwise, the said return was not supported by Tax Audit Report and Audit Report u/s 80IC prior to the filing of the return and infact they were filed during the assessment proceedings. 6.6 In the facts of the present case, as is evident from the assessment order itself, the supporting documents for the claim u/s 80IC was filed well within the extended time prescribed u/s 139(4). The said fact is evident from a reading of the assessment order itself. We also note that the principle of law as applicable to claim of exemption u/s 54 as considered by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT V Jagriti Aggarwal is fully applicable to the case at hand also and infact the decision of the Delhi Bench of the ITAT in the case of Hansa Dalakoti and Fiberfill Engineers (cited supra) relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. (cited supra) and decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Poddar Pigments Ltd. ( cited supra) fully supports the claim of the assessee. Mention may also be made of the order of the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of S.Venktiah, (cited supra) and another order of the Delhi Bench in the case of Dheer Global Industries P.Ltd. (cited supra) also support the view taken. Support may also be drawn by making reference to the order of the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rajwinder Kaur Mahal (stated supra) wherein considering the claim of deduction u/s 54 after considering the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Prakash Nath Khanna and also considering the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jagriti Aggarwal, the claim made in the extended period available under sub-section (4) of Section 139 was allowed. The order in the case of Heera Moti Agro Industries (cited supra) also deserves a mention. 6.7. Accordingly, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and position of law as canvassed by the parties before the Bench, we hold that 13 ITA No. 1154/JP/2024 Aravali Buildhome LLP the claim of the assessee could not be ousted on the fact that the return was filed within the extended period of sub section(4) of Section 139. Accordingly, we hold that the assessee deserves to succeed in principle. The matter is remanded to the AO for the purposes of verification. Needless to say that the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard In the case of Gemini Communication Ltd. vs. ACIT in ITA No. 1252/Mds/2012 August 28, 2012 (2012) 33 CCH 0295 ChenTrib (2012) 19 ITR 0001 Deductions—Claim made before due date—Electronic filing of return after due date—Allowability—Assessee filed manual return before the due date prescribed u/s. 139(1) however, electronic return was filed after due date—CIT(A) upheld order of AO holding that since electronically filed return was not filed within time therefore, deduction claimed by assessee u/s. 80IC has been disallowed by taking recourse to s. 80AC of the Act—Held, s. 80AC provides that where assessee has claimed deduction u/s. 80IC such deduction shall not be allowed unless assessee furnishes a return on or before the due date specified u/s. 139(1) of the Act—Filing of return electronically is a directory provision and if the return is filed manually on or before due date, such return cannot be ignored— AO at best could ask assessee to file electronic return again, so that the technicality of processing is satisfied—Claim of assessee for deduction u/s. 80IC cannot be denied on the ground of law stated in s. 80AC of the Act. 4. In the case of Lunidhar Seva Sahkari Mandali Ltd. vs. ASSESSING OFFICER (CPC) ITA No. 202/Rjt/2022 February 20, 2023 (2023) 67 CCH 0398 Rajkot Trib (2023) 200 ITD 0014 (Rajkot-Trib) Asst. Year 2019-20. Held as under: “7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. In the instant facts, admittedly the assessee did not file return of income within the time permissible under section 139(1) of the Act. However, the assessee filed its return of income belatedly on 30-11-2020 and claimed deduction of Rs. 2,22,704/- under section 80P of the Act. The issue for consideration before us is that whether once the return of income is filed beyond the prescribed date under section 139(1) of the Act, can the deduction under section 80P of the Act be denied to the assessee, by way of adjustment under section 143(1) of the Act. On going through the statutory provisions, we observe that 80AC of the Act provides that no such deduction under section 80P of the Act shall be allowed to an assessee unless he furnishes a return of his income on or before the due date specified under section 139(1) w.e.f. assessment year 2018-19 onwards. However, section 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act provides that disallowance of deduction claimed under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading “C.— 14 ITA No. 1154/JP/2024 Aravali Buildhome LLP Deductions in respect of certain incomes” (which includes deduction under section 80P of the Act), can be made if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139. This amendment has been introduced w.e.f. 1-4-2021. Accordingly, the above amendment would not apply to the impugned assessment year. Further, section 143(1)(ii) of the Act permits adjustment in case of an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return. However, Explanation to the aforesaid section specifies the following cases where the claim made in the return of income can be said to be “incorrect” for the purposes of this sub- section: (a) “an incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return” shall mean a claim, on the basis of an entry, in the return,— (i) of an item, which is inconsistent with another entry of the same or some other item in such return; (ii) in respect of which the information required to be furnished under this Act to substantiate such entry has not been so furnished; or (iii) in respect of a deduction, where such deduction exceeds specified statutory limit which may have been expressed as monetary amount or percentage or ratio or fraction 7.1 A joint reading of the above provisions makes it evident that the claim of deduction under section 80P of the Act cannot be allowed the assessee, if the assessee does not file its return of income within the due date stipulated under section 139(1) of the Act w.e.f. assessment year 2018-19 onwards. However, we also note that amendment has been introduced in section 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act to provide that the claim of deduction under section 80P of the Act can be denied to the assessee, in case the assessee does not file its return of income within the time prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act with effect from 01-04-2021 and does not apply to the impugned assessment year i.e. assessment year 2019-20 relevant to financial year 2018-19. Accordingly, in our considered view, denial of claim under section 80P of the Act would not come within the purview of prima facie adjustment under section 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act, for the simple reason that the section was not in force during the period under consideration i.e. assessment year 2019-20. 7.2 The second issue for consideration is that whether the case of the assessee would fall within the purview of prima facie adjustment under section 143(1)(a)(ii)(an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any 15 ITA No. 1154/JP/2024 Aravali Buildhome LLP information in the return). In our view, the scope of the adjustments that can be made under the said provision has been elaborated in the Explanation to the aforesaid section, which does not include denial of deduction claimed by the assessee in case the assessee does not furnish its return of income within the date stipulated under section 139(1) of the Act. The Explanation to the said section specifically provides for cases/instances when the claim made by the assessee could be said to be “incorrect”. Therefore, in our considered view, the case of the assessee would also not fall within the purview of prima facie adjustment under section 143(1)(a)(ii)(an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return). 7.3 We note that in the case of Chirakkal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Kannur v. CIT 2016] 68 taxmann.com 298 (Kerala), the Kerala High Court held that a return filed by assessee beyond period stipulated under section 139(1) or 139(4) or under section 142(1) or section 148 can also be accepted and acted upon for entertaining claim raised under section 80P provided further proceedings in relation to such assessments are pending in statutory hierarchy of adjudication in terms of provisions of Act. In the case of ASR Engg. & Projects Ltd. [2019] 111 taxmann.com 49 (Hyderabad- Trib.), the ITAT held that to be eligible to make claim under section 80-IA or any other section of Chapter VI A, assessee should have filed return of income under section 139(1) and even if it did not make claim for deduction in original return and subsequently file revised return making such claim, its claim for deduction under section 80-IA is maintainable. Therefore, where assessee had filed return under section 139(1), it was entitled to claim deduction under section 80-IA even if such claim was not made in original return but subsequently in revised return filed in response to notice issued under section 153A. In the case of Lanjani Co-Operative Agri Service Society Ltd. (CPC) v. DCIT [2023] 146 taxmann.com 468 (Chandigarh- Trib.), the ITAT held that the enabling provisions of sub- clause (v) of section 143(1) providing for disallowance of deduction under section 80P due to late filing of return having been introduced by Finance Act, 2021 effective from 1-4-2021, disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80P during relevant years 2018-19 and 2019-20 on grounds of late filing of return was unjustified 7.4 We note that the instant case, there was a delay in filing the return of income by the assessee for the assessment year 2019-20 and return of income was filed within due date permissible u/s 139(4) of the Act, in which the claim for deduction u/s 80P of the Act was made. Therefore, looking into the totality of facts, we are of the view that claim of deduction u/s 80P of the Act cannot be denied to the assessee only on the basis that the assessee did not file return of income its 16 ITA No. 1154/JP/2024 Aravali Buildhome LLP return of income within due date u/s 139(1) of the Act, in light of the discussion and judicial precedents highlighted above. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 22-02-2023.” Also refer Ambaradi Seva Sahkari Mandali Ltd. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ITAT RAJKOT SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM & WASEEM AHMED, AM.ITA No. 186/RJT/2022, 197/RJT/2022, 203/RJT/2022 February 10, 2023(2023) 67 CCH 0104 RajkotTrib Looking the facts of the present case there is also a sufficient reasons and beyond control to the assessee. The ratio of the above judgment is also applicable in the present case. However further there is no loss to revenue because the assessee had already paid AMT which of 20% and there was no melafide intention of the assessee to delay in filling the return only for 16 days nor assessee has benefited due it. Further when the Honble Supreme Court has extend time limit in many case then it should also be considered here and a genuine claim should not be denied only due to some technical reason and minor delay. Therefore in view of the above facts and circumstances the disallowance so made may kindly be deleted in full and oblige. 6. To support the contention so raised in the written submission reliance was placed on the following evidence / records / decisions: S. No. Particulars Page No. 1 Copy of WS to CIT(A) 1-15 2 Copy of IT Return with computation of total income 16-21 3 Copy of Form 3CB-3CD i.e. Audit report filed on dt. 03.02.2022 22-57 7. The ld. AR of the assessee in addition to the above written submission so filed vehemently argued that the ld. AO was not justified in denying the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s. 80IBA as that was the 17 ITA No. 1154/JP/2024 Aravali Buildhome LLP time of covid-19. The assessee has per the due date extended supposed to file ITR on or before 15.03.3022. The assessee obtained the audit report by 08.02.2022 but the assessee because of his health authorized signatory could it by 15.03.2022 but was filed on 31.03.2022. Thus, when the return of income filed within the extended time the same should be considered as valid return and to drive home to this contention he relied upon the decision cited in the written submission so filed. 8. The ld DR is heard who relied on the findings of the lower authorities and more particularly advanced the similar contentions as stated in the order of the ld. CIT(A). He vehemently argued that the return of income was not filed as per the provision of section as provided so as to claim the deduction. Law does not provided any exception to those time line prescribed under the Act and since the assessee has not filed the ITR within that time line as prescribed the claim of the assessee rightly been rejected. The case law cited wherein there was dispute between the parties and therefore, the facts of that case with that of the assessee are different. In the other case the assessee filed the Manual ITR. The third case law is of the other deduction u/s. 80P not 80IBA and under the law the condition is 18 ITA No. 1154/JP/2024 Aravali Buildhome LLP prescribed for claiming deduction u/s. 80IBA of the Act. Based on those arguments ld. DR supported the order of lower authority. 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. Vide ground no. 2 the assessee challenges the finding of ld. CIT(A) while confirming the disallowance / addition of Rs. 1,27,04,176/- made by the Id. AO by denying the deduction claimed u/ s 80IBA, or 80IAB or other on wrong interpretation and not considering the evidences and material in their perspective and sense, without giving any show cause notice and thereby the confirmation of addition/ disallowance so made by the AO and confirmed by the Id. CIT(A) is being totally contrary to the provisions of law. The brief facts related to the dispute are that the assessee-appellant filed his return of income declaring NIL income on 31.03.2022 in that ITR so filed the assessee claimed deduction u/s 80IBA for an amount of Rs. 1,27,13,930/- the said claim was denied to the assessee because the ITR was required to be filed on or before 15.03.2022 as per provision of section 139(1) of the Act. When the matter carried before the ld. CIT(A) the said claim was also denied to the assessee on the following finding given by the ld. CIT(A); 19 ITA No. 1154/JP/2024 Aravali Buildhome LLP The provisions laid out in Section 80AC(ii), which came into effect on April 1, 2018, leave no room for ambiguity. They emphatically establish that any deduction sought under Part C of Chapter VIA will be deemed admissible exclusively if the income tax return for that particular case is filed within the prescribed due date. Consequently, no claims under any of the provisions in Part C of Chapter VIA will be entertained in the instance of a belated return. Accordingly this ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. The assessee-appellant challenged that finding of the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the due date for filling the ITR u/s. 139(1) was extended up to 15.03.2022 on account of Covid - 19 and the assessee has filed the ITR on 31.03.2022. Before that the assessee also submitted the claim which is also supported in the Form no. 3CB-3CD which were filed on 08.02.2022 and thus it was compliance in substance. The only ITR was filed on 31.03.2022 thus, the substantial compliance was made by the assessee before the due date of filling the ITR i.e. 15.03.2022. Even the claim of the assessee was not disputed on the facts of the case and the same was only denied on the technical reason of having filled the ITR which was delayed by 16 days and thereby merely on that technical reason the claim of the assessee cannot be denied where the assessee made substantial compliance and due to Covid-19 the period the return was filed on 31.03.2022 instead of 15.03.2022. We support of our view from the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Himalchal Pradesh in the case of PCIT Vs. H. 20 ITA No. 1154/JP/2024 Aravali Buildhome LLP P. Housing & Urban Development Authority ( HIMUDA ) 157 taxmann.com 598 (Himachal Pradesh) wherein the High Court has held as under : 2.(iv) The assessee approached the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) by filing three separate appeals for the assessment years 2006-2007, 2007-2008 and 2009-2010. The assessee claimed that filing of its return was delayed due to delay by the local Audit Department ; The deduction admissible to it in law cannot be denied owing to this bonafide reason and consequent delay in filing the revised return. Learned ITAT framed following two questions for decision :- \"(a) Whether deduction claimed under section 80IB in a non-est return be allowed or not ? (b) Whether the deduction claimed by the assessee before the appellate authority which was originally not claimed owing to the fact that the audit of the books of accounts of the assessee has been delayed and the deduction was claimed after the completion of the audit.\" Regarding the issue as to whether the deduction claimed under section 80IB in a non-est return be allowed or not, learned ITAT held that non-est return does not exist in the eyes of law, hence no beneficial use or adverse conclusion can be drawn from such return. It is a return on which none can act upon. It is simply not there. No views, interpretation, derivation can be taken or given on such legally non-existing document. However, learned ITAT also held that the CIT ought to have considered the claim of assessee in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction under section 250 of the Act. If the assessee is otherwise entitled to deduction under section 80IB(10), but due to its ignorance or for some other reason could not claim the same in the return of income, but has raised its claim before the Appellate Authority, then the Appellate Authority should have looked into the same. The assessee cannot be burdened with taxes which it otherwise is not liable to pay under the law. A duty is cast upon the Income-tax Authorities to charge legitimate taxes from the tax payers. They are not there to punish the tax payers for their bonafide mistakes. Accordingly, for the assessment year 2006-2007,the deduction computed by the CIT on the merits of assessee's claim was confirmed and the appeal was accordingly allowed. 2.(v) Feeling aggrieved against the order passed by the ITAT on 10-5-2019 in relation to assessment year 2006-2007, the revenue has preferred instant appeal. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Senior counsel for the respondent. For the sake of convenience, points urged by the learned counsel for the parties are being considered and discussed hereinafter. Consideration 4.(i) The contention of the appellant is that the original return was filed by the assessee beyond the period prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. Hence, deduction under section 80IB(10) could not be allowed to it in view of bar imposed under section 80 AC. 21 ITA No. 1154/JP/2024 Aravali Buildhome LLP 4.(ii) Section 80 AC of the Act reads as under :- \"80AC. Deduction not to be allowed unless return furnished.—Where in computing the total income of an assessee of any previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing on or after - (i) the 1st day of April, 2006 but before the 1st day of April, 2018 any deduction is admissible under section 80-IA or section 80-IAB or section 80-IB or section 80-IC or section 80-ID or section 80-IE ; (ii) the 1st day of April, 2018, any deduction is admissible under any provision of this Chapter under the heading \"C.-Deductions in respect of certain incomes\", no such deduction shall be allowed to him unless he furnishes a return of his income for such assessment year on or before the due date specified under sub- section (1) of section 139.\" In terms of above section, deduction under section 80 IB is not to be allowed to an assessee unless he furnishes a return of his income for the concerned assessment year on or before the due date specified under section 139(1). 4.(iii) Section 139(1) of the Act gives out following timeline for furnishing return of income :- \"139. Return of income.—1(1) Every person,— (a) being a company [or a firm]; or (b) being a person [other than a company or a firm], if his total income or the total income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act during the previous year exceeded the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax, shall, on or before the due date, furnish a return of his income or the income of such other person during the previous year, in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed : Provided that a person referred to in clause (b), who is not required to furnish a return under this sub-section and residing in such area as may be specified by the Board in this behalf by notification in the Official Gazette, and who 4 during the previous year incurs an expenditure of fifty thousand rupees or more towards consumption of electricity or at any time during the previous year fulfils any one of the following conditions, namely:— (i) is in occupation of an immovable property exceeding a specified floor area, whether by way of ownership, tenancy or otherwise, as may be specified by the Board in this behalf; or (ii) is the owner or the lessee of a motor vehicle other than a two-wheeled motor vehicle, whether having any detachable side car having extra wheel attached to such two-wheeled motor vehicle or not; or (iii) ** ** ** (iv) has incurred expenditure for himself or any other person on travel to any foreign country; or (v) is the holder of a credit card, not being an \"add-on\" card, issued by any bank or institution; or 22 ITA No. 1154/JP/2024 Aravali Buildhome LLP (vi) is a member of a club where entrance fee charged is twenty-five thousand rupees or more, shall furnish a return, of his income during any previous year ending before the 1st day of April, 2005, on or before the due date in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed : Provided further that the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify the class or classes of persons to whom the provisions of the first proviso shall not apply: Provided also that every company or a firm shall furnish on or before the due date the return in respect of its income or loss in every previous year: Provided also that a person, being a resident other than not ordinarily resident in India within the meaning of clause (6) of section 6, who is not required to furnish a return under this sub-section and who at any time during the previous year,— (a) holds, as a beneficial owner or otherwise, any asset (including any financial interest in any entity) located outside India or has signing authority in any account located outside India; or (b) is a beneficiary of any asset (including any financial interest in any entity) located outside India, shall furnish, on or before the due date, a return in respect of his income or loss for the previous year in such form and verified in such manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed: Provided also that nothing contained in the fourth proviso shall apply to an individual, being a beneficiary of any asset (including any financial interest in any entity) located outside India where, income, if any, arising from such asset is includible in the income of the person referred to in clause (a) of that proviso in accordance with the provisions of this Act: Provided also that every person, being an individual or a Hindu undivided family or an association of persons or a body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, or an artificial juridical person, if his total income or the total income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act during the previous year, without giving effect to the provisions of clause (38) of section 10 or section 10 or section 10B or section 10BA or Chapter VIA exceeded the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax, shall, on or before the due date, furnish a return of his income or the income of such other person during the previous year, in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed. Explanation 1.—For the purposes of this sub-section, the expression \"motor vehicle\" shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (28) of section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988). Explanation 2.—In this sub-section, \"due date\" means,— (a) where the assessee other than an assessee referred to in clause (aa) is— (i) a company ***; or (ii) a person (other than a company) whose accounts are required to be audited under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force; or 23 ITA No. 1154/JP/2024 Aravali Buildhome LLP (iii) a working partner of a firm whose accounts are required to be audited under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force, the 30th day of September] of the assessment year; (aa) in the case of an assessee who is required to furnish a report referred to in section 92E, the 30th day of November of the assessment year; (b) in the case of a person other than a company, referred to in the first proviso to this sub-section, the 31st day of October of the assessment year; (c) in the case of any other assessee, the 31st day of July of the assessment year. Explanation 3.—For the purposes of this sub-section, the expression \"travel to any foreign country\" does not include travel to the neighbouring countries or to such places of pilgrimage as the Board may specify in this behalf by notification in the Official Gazette. Explanation 4.—For the purposes of this section \"beneficial owner\" in respect of an asset means an individual who has provided, directly or indirectly, consideration for the asset for the immediate or future benefit, direct or indirect, of himself or any other person. Explanation 5.—For the purposes of this section \"beneficiary\" in respect of an asset means an individual who derives benefit from the asset during the previous year and the consideration for such asset has been provided by any person other than such beneficiary.\" In the instant case, the assessee filed return of income under section 139(1) on 31- 3-2007. For the assessment year 2006-2007, the due date was 30-11-2006. The return of income was filed beyond the prescribed period. The assessee did not claim any deduction in the original return of income filed by him. The revised return was filed on 31-3-2008 claiming deduction under section 80 IB (10). The said provision reads as under :- \"80IB. (10) The amount of deduction in the case of an undertaking developing and building housing projects approved before the 31st day of March, 2008 by a local authority shall be hundred per cent of the profits derived in the previous year relevant to any assessment year from such housing project if,— (a) such undertaking has commenced or commences development and construction of the housing project on or after the 1st day of October, 1998 and completes such construction,— (i) in a case where a housing project has been approved by the local authority before the 1st day of April, 2004, on or before the 31st day of March, 2008; (ii) in a case where a housing project has been, or, is approved by the local authority on or after the 1st day of April, 2004 but not later than the 31st day of March, 2005, within four years from the end of the financial year in which the housing project is approved by the local authority; (iii) in a case where a housing project has been approved by the local authority on or after the 1st day of April, 2005, within five years from the end of the financial year in which the housing project is approved by the local authority. Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause,— (i) in a case where the approval in respect of the housing project is obtained more than once, such housing project shall be deemed to have been approved on the 24 ITA No. 1154/JP/2024 Aravali Buildhome LLP date on which the building plan of such housing project is first approved by the local authority; (ii) the date of completion of construction of the housing project shall be taken to be the date on which the completion certificate in respect of such housing project is issued by the local authority; (b) the project is on the size of a plot of land which has a minimum area of one acre: Provided that nothing contained in clause (a) or clause (b) shall apply to a housing project carried out in accordance with a scheme framed by the Central Government or a State Government for reconstruction or redevelopment of existing buildings in areas declared to be slum areas under any law for the time being in force and such scheme is notified by the Board in this behalf; (c) the residential unit has a maximum built-up area of one thousand square feet where such residential unit is situated within the city of Delhi or Mumbai or within twenty-five kilometres from the municipal limits of these cities and one thousand and five hundred square feet at any other place; (d) the built-up area of the shops and other commercial establishments included in the housing project does not exceed three per cent of the aggregate built-up area of the housing project or five thousand square feet, whichever is higher; (e) not more than one residential unit in the housing project is allotted to any person not being an individual; and (f) in a case where a residential unit in the housing project is allotted to a person being an individual, no other residential unit in such housing project is allotted to any of the following persons, namely:— (i) the individual or the spouse or the minor children of such individual, (iii) the Hindu undivided family in which such individual is the karta, (iv) (iii) any person representing such individual, the spouse or the minor children of such individual or the Hindu undivided family in which such individual is the karta. Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply to any undertaking which executes the housing project as a works contract awarded by any person (including the Central or State Government).\" 4.(iv) We may note here that in the instant case, the CIT(A) as well as ITAT have concurrently held that the asessee was actually entitled in law to certain deductions under section 80IB(10) of the Act. The deductions to which the assessee has been held entitled to, have been specifically calculated by the CIT(A) & the ITAT. There is no challenge in this appeal to these factual findings of the CIT(A) as confirmed by the ITAT in respect of admissibility of precise deductions under section 80IB(10) to the assessee. The only contention is that since the original return of income was filed by the asessee beyond the period prescribed in section 139(1), therefore, the embargo placed by section 80AC on the entitlement of the assessee to the deduction claimed under section 80IB of the Act comes into play. Section 139 (4) allows \"any person who has not furnished return within the time allowed to him under sub-section (1) may furnish the returns for any previous year at any time before the end of the relevant assessment year or before the 25 ITA No. 1154/JP/2024 Aravali Buildhome LLP completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier\". Section 139(5) provides that \"if any person, having furnished a return under sub-section (1) or sub-section (4), discovers any omission or any wrong statement therein, he may furnish a revised return at any time before the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier.\" 4.(iv)(a) Consequences of non filing of return in time as per section 139(1) vis-à-vis resultant action under section 276-CC was under consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Prakash Nath Khanna v. CIT [2004] 135 Taxman 327/266 ITR 1/[2004] 9 SCC 686. Assessee's submissions inter-alia were that :- 'The expression to furnish in due time figuring in section 276-CC means to furnish within the time permissible under the Act ; The return furnished under section 139(4) at any time before the assessment is made, has to be regarded as a return furnished under section 139(1) ; This was so held by the Apex Court in CIT v. Kulu Valley Transport Co. (P.) Ltd. [1970] 77 ITR 518 (SC) in context of sections 22(1) & 22 (3) of the Act which were pari-materia to sections 139(1) & 139(4).' Hon'ble Apex Court held Court cannot read anything into a statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous. A statute is an edict of the Legislature. The language employed in the statute is determinative factor of legislative intent. Provisions of section 276-CC are in clear terms. There is no scope of uncertainty. The interpretation sought to be put on section 276-CC to the effect that a return filed under section 139(4) would meet requirement of filing a return under section 139(1), cannot be accepted. The time within which a return is to be furnished is indicated in section 139(1) and not in 139(4). That being so, even if a return is filed in terms of section 139(4), that would not dilute the infraction in not furnishing the return 'in due time' as prescribed under section 139(1). Otherwise, the use of words 'in due time' would lose their relevance and it cannot be said that the said expression was used without any purpose. Relevant extracts from the judgment are as under :- \"13. It is well settled principle in law that the Court cannot read anything into a statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous. A statute is an edict of the legislature. The language employed in a statute is the determinative factor of legislative intent. The first and primary rule of construction is that the intention of the legislation must be found in the words used by the legislature itself. The question is not what may be supposed and has been intended but what has been said. \"Statutes should be construed, not as theorems of Euclid\", Judge Learned Hand said, \"but words must be construed with some imagination of the purposes which lie behind them\". (See Lenigh Valley Coal Co. v. Yensavage (218 FR 547). The view was re- iterated in Union of India v. Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedem Vasco De Gama (AIR 1990 SC 981), and Padma Sundara Rao (dead) and Ors. V. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. (2002 (3) SCC 533). 14-15. ** ** ** 16. Two principles of construction- one relating to casus omissus and the other in regard to reading the statute as a whole -appear to be well settled. Under the first principle a casus omissus cannot be supplied by the court except in the case of clear necessity and when reason for it is found in the four corners of the statute 26 ITA No. 1154/JP/2024 Aravali Buildhome LLP itself but at the same time a casus omissus should not be readily inferred and for that purpose all the parts of a statute or section must be construed together and every clause of a section should be construed with reference to the context and other clauses thereof so that the construction to be put on a particular provision makes a consistent enactment of the whole statute. This would be more so if literal construction of a particular clause leads to manifestly absurd or anomalous results which could not have been intended by the legislature. \"An intention to produce an unreasonable result\", said Danckwerts, L.J., in Artemiou v. Procopiou (1966 (1) QB 878), \"is not to be imputed to a statute if there is some other construction available\". Where to apply words literally would \"defeat the obvious intention of the legislation and produce a wholly unreasonable result\", we must \"do some violence to the words\" and so achieve that obvious intention and produce a rational construction. (Per Lord Reid in Luke v. IRC {1963 AC 557} where at AC p.577 he also observed: \"This is not a new problem, though our standard of drafting is such that it rarely emerges\" 17. ………………………………………..In the present case as noted above, the provisions of section 276-CC are in clear terms. There is no scope for trying to clear any doubt or ambiguity as urged by learned counsel for the appellants. Interpretation sought to be put on section 276-CC to the effect that if a return is filed under sub-section (4) of section 139 it means that the requirements of sub- section (1) of section 139 cannot be accepted for more reasons than one. 18. One of the significant terms used in section 276-CC is 'in due time'. The time within which the return is to be furnished is indicated only in sub-section (1) of section 139 and not in sub-section (4) of section 139. That being so, even if a return is filed in terms of sub-section (4) of section 139 that would not dilute the infraction in not furnishing the return in due time as prescribed under sub-section (1) of section 139. Otherwise, the use of the expression \"in due time\" would loose its relevance and it cannot be said that the said expression was used without any purpose. Before substitution of the expression \"clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 142\" by Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987 w.e.f. 1-4-1989 the expression used was \"sub-section (2) of section 139\". At the relevant point of time the assessing officer was empowered to issue a notice requiring furnishing of a return within the time indicated therein. That means the infractions which are covered by section 276-CC relate to non-furnishing of return within the time in terms of sub-section (1) or indicated in the notice given under sub-section (2) of section 139. There is no condonation of the said infraction, even if a return is filed in terms of sub-section (4). Accepting such a plea would mean that a person who has not filed a return within the due time as prescribed under sub-sections (1) or (2) of section 139 would get benefit by filing the return under section 139(4) much later. This cannot certainly be the legislative intent.\" Therefore, a return of income filed under section 139(4) cannot be said to be meeting the requirements of section 139(1) in context of section 80AC of the Act, which specifically insists upon filing of return by the due date prescribed under section 139(1) for availing the admissible deductions. 4.(iv)(b) In B.U. Bhandari Nandgude Patil Associates v. Central Board of Direct Taxes [2018] 91 taxmann.com 241/255 Taxman 60 (Delhi)/[Writ Petition (Civil) No. 27 ITA No. 1154/JP/2024 Aravali Buildhome LLP 6537 of 2017, dated 12-3-2018], by the Delhi High Court, the return of Assessment Year due under section 139(1) on 31-10-2006 was actually filed on 30-3-2007 before expiry of the assessment year in question as per extended time provided under section 139(4). The deductions claimed under section 80IB were disallowed relying upon section 80AC on the ground that return of income had not been filed within the time limit specified under section 139(1). The issue before the Delhi High Court pertained to order passed in the assessee's application under section 119(2)(6) of the Act seeking extension of time for filing of return. The ground forwarded for late filing of the return was delay in audit. The Court considered the case for condonation of delay as under :- \"9. The main issue raised by the assessee in this case is that the delay in audit has led to delay in filing of return which had led to his claim of 80IB(10) being disallowed and this had caused genuine hardship to him. It should be noted first that disallowance of any claim will normally lead to hardship. The Legislature has provided time limits for certain obligations under the Act and these time limits have to be observed to be able to claim certain deductions, allowances and avoid interest and penalty. This may be termed a hardship but it is hardship imposed by law in the interest of proper regulation of the Act. If these time limits were to be relaxed in a particular case, mere fact that a default occurred due to some reason is not enough to establish the claim of genuine hardship. 10. In determining whether genuine hardship is caused to the assessee one has to see whether the delay in filing of return was due to a reasonable cause or not. In this case, delay is attributed ti(sic to) the Auditor. However in such a case on has to see whether the Auditor had a reasonable for cause for delay and whether the assessee pursued the matter due to diligence to get his audit done in time. 11. On the question whether the auditor had a reasonable cause or not, the fact do not show any medical exigency of the kind which would cause so much delay when a statutory deduction of such a large amount was at stake. The auditor has not even been able to mention the nature of illness. In fact considering the hardship caused to the assessee, it would be expected that the assessee will himself have information on the illness having obtained it from the auditor at the relevant time. In this connection, it is noted that the auditor has mentioned that it was a big audit assignment and it needed his personal attention. Yet such an assignment is the only delayed without any memory of the extraordinary medical exigency which had caused it. It is also noted that the delay in audit is of five months and not a few days and therefore, a general explanation of medical exigency without any details does not explain the justification for long delay. 12. The assessee has also not been able to show that it pursued the matter with any diligence after all the responsibility of filing the return in time is the assessee and he is expected to be even more diligent if a large claim of deduction is involved. There is nothing to show that the assessee pursued the matter with auditor to get audit done. The fact that all other audit were done timely by the auditor except for this audit also does not help the as-sessee's case as any medical exigency of the magnitude being claimed would have delayed at least a few more audits.\" 28 ITA No. 1154/JP/2024 Aravali Buildhome LLP 15. We have considered the said findings recorded by the CBDT, which are primarily factual and also lucid and cogent. Deduction under section 80IB was not examined and considered on merits by the Assessing Officer. The contention that if the petitioner had followed percentage completion method claim for issue of deduction under section 80IB would have arisen in subsequent year was a hypothetical. Petitioner was required and CBDT was justified in asking the petitioner to establish the reason propounded. In the absence of details of alleged illness and a single document to support the bland assertion, we are not inclined to hold that the impugned order suffers from perversity or error in decision making process in reaching the conclusion. Impugned order is not arbitrary or whimsical, to justify interference in exercise of our power of judicial review. The respondent authorities have taken all the arguments and materials into consideration. Procedural flaw is not alleged. 16. The findings recorded in the impugned order and the facts discussed above reveal :- (i) Return for the assessment year 2006-07, which was to be filed under section 139 (1) of the Act on 31st October, 2006 was filed by the petitioner after five months on 30th March, 2007. (ii) The petitioner was denied benefit of deduction under section 80IB in terms of section 80AC of the Act. (iii) The order passed by the Tribunal confirming the findings of the Assessing Officer and the first appellate authority denying deduction under section 80IB has attained finality. (iv) The petitioner had applied to extension of time for filing of return under section 119 (2)(b) for the assessment year 2006-07 vide application dated 11th May, 2011, nearly four years after the return was filed. (iv) This delay in filing of application for extension of time to file return of income was entirely attributable to the petitioner. (v) Sole and only reason given was medical exigency and illness of the auditor that had consequently resulted in delay in filing of the return. (vi) Auditor did state that due to medical emergency at his end, there was delay in completing audit. However, the auditor did not give (a) details of illness and nature of medical emergency (b) how long did the medical treatment or emergency last and (c) prescription or documents in support of his assertion. Auditor had also accepted that other audits were completed in time. (vii) Contention that medical evidence had dissipated and therefore not produce is unacceptable, for the petitioner cannot take benefit and advantage of the delay and failure. (viii) CBDT has refused to grant extension of time for filing of return in view of the vague assertions, absence of details and adequate proof. (ix) Delay of 5 months was substantial. 17. Statutory time limits fixed have to be adhered to as it ensures timely completion of assessments. Discipline on time limits regarding filing of returns have to be 29 ITA No. 1154/JP/2024 Aravali Buildhome LLP complied and respected, unless compelling and good reasons are shown and established for grant of extension of time. Extension of time cannot be claimed as a vested right on mere asking and on the basis of vague assertions without proof. Statutory audits it is a common knowledge are not undertaken by one person but by a team consisting of auditor(s), article clerks and others. 18. In the present case, we do not know the nature of illness or medical emergency suffered by the auditor and how long the auditor was incapacitated and could not work. The assertions made to justify extension of time have to be proved and established. Any indulgence on the pretext that the petitioner has been denied benefit under section 80IB, which on merits would have been allowed, would be contrary to law, if it is held that there was no reasonable ground or reason for extension of time in filing of the return\". 4.(iv)(c) Fiberfill Engineers v. Dy. CIT [2017] 85 taxmann.com 27/299 CTR 173 Delhi was a case where a re-assessment notice was issued to the assessee on the ground that it could not be granted deduction under section 80 IC because of belated filing of return of income. However, it was noted that on merits, assessee's claim for deduction was justified. In the circumstances, the Delhi High Court held in favour of asessee that since entitlement of assessee to deduction had not been questioned by the department on merits, there was no justification for not viewing delay in filing the return to be bonafide. 4.(iv)(d) In the instant case, the assessee is a statutory organization created by the State for providing & develop housing infrastructure. It took up a defence of late audit for belated filing of its return of income. The veracity of ground so put forth for late filing of return has not been disputed by the appellant. The assessee deals with public money, the State exchequer. The Commissioner of Income-tax and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal have concurrently held on facts after undertaking a lengthy & pain staking exercise that the assessee was actually entitled to deductions under section 80IB(10) of the Act. The specific amount of deduction admissible to it has also been computed. The ground put forth by the assessee for not filing the return of income within the time provided under section 139(1) having been accepted on facts by the appellant, we in the given facts are inclined to hold, in this case, that the assessee had a reasonable & bonafide cause for not filing the return of income within the time permitted under section 139(1). In view of above, we are in agreement with the view of the learned ITAT that once in the given facts, the assessee has been held entitled to claim the specifically computed deductions, then it should not be burdened with taxes which it is otherwise not liable to pay under law. 5. For all the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is dismissed. All pending applications, if any, also to stand disposed of. Respectfully following the judgment as cited herein above and considering the facts being similar we consider the appeal of the assessee and thereby 30 ITA No. 1154/JP/2024 Aravali Buildhome LLP ground no. 2 raised by the assessee is allowed. Ground no. 3 is consequential in nature and does not require any finding. Vide Ground no. 1 the assessee challenges the order on technical ground since we have consider the ground on merits this ground becomes academic. Ground no. 4 being general does not require any finding. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 04/06/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼ Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ ¼ jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 04/06/2025 *Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Aravali Buildhomes LLP, Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- AO, CPC, Jaipur 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) 5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 1154/JP/2024) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar "