Jajpal Singh Bisht, Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 1244/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4783 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 25-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 02-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T VASANTHAN
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Reasonable cause
• Section: 80IB; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES SMC : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.NO.1244/DEL./2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-2014 SHRI JAIPAL SINGH BISHT C-202, SAGAR SADAN, PLOT NO.13, IP EXTENSION, PATPARGANJ, DELHI 092. PAN AAWPB3875E VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-60(3), NEW DELHI. ( APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN, C.A. FOR REVENUE : SHRI T. VASANTHAN, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 07.09.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13 .09.2017 ORDER THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-19, NEW DELHI, DATED 29 TH DECEMBER, 2016, FOR THE A.Y. 2013-2014. 2. THE ASSESSEE FILED E-RETURN ON 24 TH FEBRUARY, 2014, DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.2 LAKHS. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME BELATEDLY ON 24 TH FEBRUARY, 2014 WHEREAS, THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961, WAS 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2013. THE 2 ITA.NO.1244/DEL./2017 SHRI JAIPAL SINGH BISHT, DELHI. A.O. THEREFORE, NOTED THAT CONDITIONS OF SECTION 80 AC OF THE I.T. ACT, HAVE NOT BEEN SATISFIED IN THIS CASE. HENCE, THE CL AIM OF ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC WAS NOT ALLOWED AND AD DITION OF RS.16,12,580 WAS MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE . 2.1. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION BEFORE T HE LD. CIT(A) AND IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, ASSESSEE STATED THAT A.O. MIS-STATED THE FACTS REGARDING IGNORING THE REASONABLENESS OF THE BELATED FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME WHICH WAS ATTRIBUTED TO THE FAU LT OF THE COUNSEL AND NOT THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 80AC ARE IN THE NATURE OF DIRECTORY AND MACHINERY P ROVISIONS WHICH CANNOT BE TREATED TO BE MANDATORY. THE LD. CIT(A) C ONSIDERED THIS ISSUE IN DETAIL WITH REFERENCE TO SECTION 80AC, SEC TION 139 OF THE I.T. ACT AND INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THESE PROVISIONS AND RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH IN THE CASE OF BA L KRISHAN DHAWAN HUF VS. ITO 18 TAXMANN.COM 234 IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80AC OF THE I.T. ACT, ARE MAN DATORY IN NATURE. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO NOTED THAT THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN SECTION 80AC ARE MANDATORY AND NOT DIRECTORY AS ALSO BEEN A FFIRMED BY THE SPECIAL BENCH, RAJKOT IN THE CASE OF SAFFIRE GARMEN TS VS. ITO 28 3 ITA.NO.1244/DEL./2017 SHRI JAIPAL SINGH BISHT, DELHI. TAXMANN.COM 27, WHICH HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE ITA T, MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF DWARKADASS PANCHAMATIA VS. ACI T 57 TAXMANN.COM 2. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION WAS CONFIR MED AND APPEAL OF ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DISMISSED. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE RETURN WAS ON ACCOUNT OF FAULT OF THE COUNSEL AND RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, PUNE BENCH IN TH E CASE OF SURNEDRA RAMCHANDRA BHATKAR VS. ITO, WARD-1, RATNAGIRI ITA.N O.1892/PN/ 2013 DATED 21.01.2014, IN WHICH THE TRIBUNAL FOLLOW ED THE DECISIONS OF HYDERABAD BENCH AND BANGALORE BENCH, IN WHICH, I T WAS HELD THAT ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DENIED DEDUCTION ON TECHNICALITI ES WHEN ASSESSEE IS LEGALLY OTHERWISE ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION. THE TR IBUNAL, IN THIS CASE, RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF A.O. TO CON SIDER THE REASONABLE CAUSE ATTRIBUTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND WHETHER THE AS SESSEE COMPLIED WITH THE CONDITIONS OF THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 4. THE LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4 ITA.NO.1244/DEL./2017 SHRI JAIPAL SINGH BISHT, DELHI. 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. SECTIO N 80AC OF THE I.T. ACT PROVIDES AS UNDER : 80AC. WHERE IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF AN AS SESSEE OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR COMME NCING ON THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 2006 OR ANY SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YE AR, ANY DEDUCTION, IS ADMISSIBLE UNDER SECTION 80IA OR SECTION 80IAB OR SECTION 80IB OR SECTION 80IC, 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. 5.1. IT IS, THEREFORE, APPARENT FROM THE LANGUAGE OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80AC OF THE I.T. ACT THAT NO DEDUCTION U NDER SECTION 80IC SHALL BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE UNLESS THE ASSESSE E FURNISHES THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR ON OR BEF ORE DUE DATE SPECIFIED UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE I.T. ACT. ASS ESSEE ADMITTEDLY FILED RETURN UNDER SECTION 139(1) BELATEDLY. THE LD . CIT(A) FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE AMRITSAR BENCH, SPECIAL BENCH, RAJKOT AND MUMBAI BENCH, ON THE PROPOSITION THAT THE PROVISION S CONTAINED UNDER SECTION 80AC OF THE ACT ARE MANDATORY IN NATU RE. LEARNED 5 ITA.NO.1244/DEL./2017 SHRI JAIPAL SINGH BISHT, DELHI. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT POINTED OUT OF ANY DISTINCTION FROM THESE JUDGMENTS REFERRED TO BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND H AS NOT BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THESE DECISIONS ARE NOT APPLIC ABLE TO THE INSTANT CASE. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER, REL IED UPON THE ORDER OF ITAT, PUNE BENCH IN THE CASE OF SURENDRA R AMCHANDRA BHATKAR VS. ITO (SUPRA), IN WHICH THE MATTER WAS RE STORED TO THE FILE OF A.O. TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVEN TED BY REASONABLE CAUSE AS ATTRIBUTED BY IT IN ITS AFFIDAVIT IN FURNI SHING ITS RETURN OF INCOME BELATEDLY. HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE EXCEPT RAISING A GROUND OF APPEAL THAT RETURN WAS DELAYED BECAUSE OF THE FAULT OF THE COUNSEL, HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY EVIDENC E OR MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SUPPORT THIS CONTENTION. THEREFORE, ASSES SEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN ANY REASONABLE CAUSE FOR FAILURE TO FILE TH E RETURN OF INCOME WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. THUS THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SURENDRA RAMCHANDRA BHATKAR VS. ITO (SUPRA), WOULD NOT APPLY TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. LEARNED CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE LASTLY CONTENDED THAT DELAY IN FILING RETU RN MAY BE CONDONED BY TRIBUNAL, HOWEVER, HE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO E XPLAIN UNDER WHICH PROVISION OF I.T. ACT, TRIBUNAL CAN CONDONE THE DEL AY IN FILING THE 6 ITA.NO.1244/DEL./2017 SHRI JAIPAL SINGH BISHT, DELHI. RETURN BELATEDLY. SUCH POWERS COULD BE EXERCISED BY CBDT ONLY. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE, IN THE LIGHT OF FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND IN THE LIGHT OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80AC OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961, R EFERRED TO ABOVE, I DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED . 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DELHI, DATED13 TH SEPTEMBER, 2017 VBP/- COPY TO 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) CONCERNED 4. CIT CONCERNED 5. D.R. ITAT SMC BENCH, DELHI 6. GUARD FILE. // BY ORDER // ASST. REGISTRAR : ITAT DELHI BENCHES : DELHI.