Surendra Ramchandra Bhatkar, Ratnagiri V. Income -tax Officer,

ITA 1892/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 76083 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 21-10-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P L PATHADE
• Keywords: Rectification of order; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Reasonable cause; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 80IB; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1892/PN/2013 (ASSTT.YEAR : 2011-12) SURENDRA RAMCHANDRA BHATKAR, H.NO.1563, BUNDER ROAD, MANDAVI, RATNAGIRI 415 612 .. APPELLANT PAN NO.ABAPB5141Q VS. ITO, WARD-1, RATNAGIRI .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUNIL GANOO REVENUE BY : SHRI P.L. PATHADE DATE OF HEARING : 16-01-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21-01-2014 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 26-08-2013 OF THE CIT(A), KOLHAPUR RELATING TO A.Y. 2011-12. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 09-04-2012 DECLARING NIL INCOME AFTER CLA IMING DEDUCTION OF RS.31,54,534/- U/S.80IB AND RS.56,028/- U/S.80C. T HE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN IN THIS CASE WAS 30-09-2011. THE ASSESSE E FILED A RECTIFICATION PETITION WHICH WAS REJECTED VIDE INTIMATION DATED 2 0-07-2012. THE DEDUCTION OF RS.31,54,534/- CLAIMED U/S.80IB WAS DI SALLOWED IN THE PROCESSING DATED 11-05-2012. THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHICH WAS LATE BY MORE THAN 2 MONTHS. HOWEV ER, THE CIT(A) 2 CONSIDERING THE ILLNESS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE COND ONATION PETITION CONDONED SUCH DELAY. 2.1 SO FAR AS THE MERIT OF THE CASE IS CONCERNED HE DECIDED THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 5. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE STATEMENT OF FACTS FILED WITH FORM NO.35 AND APPELLANTS SUBMISSIONS DATED 26-07-2013 FILED BEFO RE ME. RETURN OF INCOME CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA HAS BEEN FILED ON 09-04- 2012 WHEREAS DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN WAS 30- 09-2011. THE APPELLANT HAS TAKEN THE GROUND THAT HE SHOULD NOT SUFF ER FOR TECHNICAL OR VENIAL BREACH OF LAW COMMITTED DUE TO REASONABLE CAU SE/CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND HIS CONTROL. HOWEVER, THE LAW FOR ALLOWING D EDUCTION U/S.80IA IS VERY CLEAR. AS PER SECTION 80AC, DEDUCTION U/S.80IA CAN BE ALLOWED ONLY IF RETURN HAS BEEN FILED ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE SP ECIFIED U/S.139(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. IF THE RETURN IS FILED BE FORE DUE DATE AS PER SECTION 139(1), DEDUCTION U/S.80IA CAN BE ALLOWED. S ECONDLY, THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AGAINST RECTIFICATION U/S.154 OF THE AC T. HOWEVER, ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IA IS NOT SUBJECT MATTER OF SECTION 154. THE DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE NOT BECAUSE OF MISTAKE APPAR ENT FROM RECORD BUT DUE TO FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH PROVISIONS O F THE ACT. THEREFORE, GROUNDS NO. 2 AND 3 TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT ARE REJEC TED. 2.2 AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASS ESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED C.I.T.[A] HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE APPEL LANT U/S 80-IB[10] OF THE I.T. ACT 1961. THE SAID DISALLOWANCE BEING PATENTLY I LLEGAL, BAD IN LAW AND DEVOID OF MERITS THE SAME MAY PLEASE BE DELETED AND TH E CLAIM MADE BY THE APPELLANT MAY PLEASE BE ACCEPTED. 2. IT MAY PLEASE BE HELD THAT SINCE THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY REASONABLE CAUSE FROM FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y.2 011-12 WITHIN THE STATUTORY TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED U/S.139[1] OF THE I.T. ACT 1961, THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB [10) AS MADE BY THE APPELLANT DESE RVES TO BE ACCEPTED. CONSEQUENTLY THE DEDUCTION U/S.80IB [10] AS CLAIMED B Y THE APPELLANT IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME BE ALLOWED. 3. THE LEARNED C.I.T.[A] HAS ERRED IN APPRECIATING T HAT THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE HIM WAS IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(1] OF THE I.T. ACT 1961 AND NOT AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED U/S.154 OF THE I .T. ACT 1961. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE FINDING / CONCLUSION OF THE LEARNED C.I.T.[A] THAT THE APPEAL WAS FILED AGAINST THE RECTIFICATION ORDER PASSED U/S.15 4 OF THE I.T. ACT 1961 IS ARBITRARY, PERVERSE, BASELESS, AND DEVOID OF MERITS AND HENCE THE SAID FINDING / CONCLUSION OF THE LEARNED C.I.T.[A] BE DELETED. 3 4. THE APPELLANT DENIES HIS LIABILITY TO PAY ANY INT EREST U/S.234 B OF THE I.T. ACT 1961 AND HENCE THE INTEREST LEVIED U/S.234B OF T HE I.T. ACT 1961 BE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT TH E IRREGULARITIES IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT AS AGAI NST THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB THE CIT(A) HAS MENTIONED ABOUT T HE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION 80IA. REFERRING TO THE ENCLOSURES ALONG WITH FORM NO.35 HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE INTI MATION U/S.143(1) OF THE I.T. ACT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) WHEREIN THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF RS.31,54,534/- WAS DENIED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER. HOWEVER, THE LD.CIT(A) INSTEAD OF ADJUDICATING ON T HE SAME HAS MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL AGA INST THE RECTIFICATION ORDER U/S.154 OF THE ACT WHICH IS NOT CORRECT. 3.1 REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE BANGALORE BENC H OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/.S VANSHEE BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS V IDE ITA NO.386/BANG/2012 ORDER DATED 07-12-2012 HE SUBMITTE D THAT THE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWING VARIOUS DECISIONS HAS HELD THAT PROVISO FOURTH TO SECTION 10B(1), WHICH PROHIBITS DEDUCTION UNDER THI S SECTION IF THE RETURN IS NOT FURNISHED ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE SPECIFIE D U/S.139(1), IS DIRECTORY AND NOT MANDATORY AND THEREFORE RELIEF CA N BE GRANTED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN CASE THERE WAS GENUINE AND V ALID REASON FOR THE MARGINAL DELAY IN FILING OF RETURN. REFERRING TO T HE DECISION OF THE HYDERABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. S. VENKATAIAH VIDE ITA NO.984/HYD/2011 ORDER DATED 31-05-2012 FOR A.Y. 2008-09 HE SUBMITTED THAT UNDER IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IC WHEREIN RET URN WAS FILED 4 BELATEDLY HOLDING THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE CA NNOT BE DENIED ON TECHNICALITIES WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS LEGALLY OTHERWI SE ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION. HE ALSO RELIED ON VARIOUS OTHER DECISIO NS WHICH ARE AS UNDER : 1. FATHIMA BAI VS. ITO REPORTED IN 32 DTR (KAR) 243 2. CIT VS. MS. JAGRITI AGGARWAL REPORTED IN 339 ITR 610 3. ACIT VS. DHIR GLOBAL INDUSTRIAL (P) LTD. REPORTED IN 43 SOT 640 4. ITO VS. AJIT HARIBHAU GHULE IN ITA NO.681/PN/2011 ORDER DATED 70-07-2012 3.2 HE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS SUFFER ING FROM CANCER ON RIGHT KIDNEY AND WAS NOT KEEPING GOOD HEALTH FOR TH E ABOVE, THEREFORE, HE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO FILE THE RETURN BEFORE THE SPECIFIED DATE. ALTHOUGH THE ABOVE FACT WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, THESE WERE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE LD .CIT(A) WHO HAS CONDONED THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL FOR THE ABOVE REASONS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE ON THE PA RT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT FILING THE RETURN ON OR BEFORE THE STATUTORY DA TE. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE DECISIONS CITED ABOVE, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AS SESSEE SHOULD NOT BE DENIED THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB WHICH WAS OTHERWISE ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAND WHILE SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT I N ALL THE CASES WHICH HAS BEEN RELIED ON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE THE TRIBUNAL HAS RESTORED THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS NO OBJECTION IF THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE AFRESH SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO OPPORTUNITY OF GOING THROUGH THE REA SONABLE CAUSE FOR FILING OF THE RETURN BEFORE THE STATUTORY DUE DATE. 5 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY B OTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE US. THERE IS NO DIS PUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT CASE HAS FILED THE RETURN O F INCOME ON 09-04-2012 AS AGAINST THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN U/S.139 (1) ON OR BEFORE 30-09- 2011. WE FIND IN THE INTIMATION PASSED U/S.143(1) THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF RS.31,54,534/- HAS BEEN DENIED FOR NON-FILING OF THE RETURN BEFORE THE STATUTORY DUE DATE. WE FIND THE LD.CIT(A) WHILE DE CIDING THE APPEAL HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE GROUNDS RAISED BEFORE HIM AND PR OCEEDED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AS IF THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPEAL AGAIN ST THE ORDER PASSED U/S.154 OF THE I.T. ACT ALTHOUGH AS PER ENCLOSURES OF FORM NO.35 THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE I NTIMATION U/S.143(1) OF THE I.T. ACT. 5.1 IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT DUE TO THE ILLNESS OF THE ASSESSEE HE WAS PREVENTED FROM S UFFICIENT REASONS FOR NOT FILING THE RETURN BEFORE THE STATUTORY DUE DATE . THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE VARIOUS DECISIONS THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80 IB SHOULD NOT BE DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, IT IS ALSO THE SU BMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE DUE DATE SPECIFIE D U/S.139(1) IS DIRECTORY AND NOT MANDATORY. 5.2 WE FIND THE HYDERABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF S. VENKATAIAH (SUPRA) WHILE DECIDING AN IDENTICAL ISSU E HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: 6 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF IN COME ON 23.12.2008. THE DUE DATE FOR FILING THE RETURN OF I NCOME U/S. 139(1) OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THE C ASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS 31.10.2008. AS SUCH THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE IS BELATED. IN THIS THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 80IC OF THE A CT WHICH WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS THE RETURN OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FILED WITHIN THE TIME AS PRESCRIBED U/S. 139(1) OF TH E ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN REASONS FOR DELAY IN FILING THE RETURN OF INCOM E THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREPARING ITS ACCOUNTS THROUGH COMPUTER AND THE COMPU TER GOT CORRUPTED DUE TO VIRUSES AND IN SPITE OF CONTINUOUS EFFORTS BY TH E COMPUTER TECHNICAL PERSONNEL TO RETRIEVE THE DATA IN TIME FOR FILING TH E RETURN OF INCOME, PROBLEM PERSISTED IN THE SYSTEM. BY TRYING TO RETRIEVE THE DATA FOR 4 DAYS THE REQUIRED DATA COULD NOT BE RETRIEVED AND THE BA CKED UP DATA WERE AVAILABLE ONLY UP TO 31 ST JANUARY, 2008 IN THE CD AND THE ENTIRE DATA FOR THE TWO MONTHS PERIOD, FEBRUARY AND MARCH, 2008, HA D TO BE RE-ENTERED INTO THE COMPUTER SYSTEM AGAIN. ON PREPARATION OF THE FINAL ACCOUNTS AND FINALISING OF STATUTORY AUDIT IT TOOK A LITTLE EXTRA TIME THAT RESULTED IN BELATED FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME. THUS THERE WAS A DELAY OF 74 DAYS IN FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME WHICH IS BEYOND THE CONT ROL OF ASSESSEE. THIS WAS ALSO CONFIRMED BY THE STATUTORY AUDITOR VIDE HIS LE TTER DATED 20.3.2011. BEING SO, IN OUR OPINION THERE IS A REASONA BLE CAUSE FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME BELATEDLY AND THIS IS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE. WHEN THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF JUSTICE INVOLVE D TECHNICALITIES SHOULD BE IGNORED. FURTHER, WE ARE SUPPORTED BY THE O RDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS. 1231 & 1199/HYD/2010 IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. M/S.VEGA CONVEYORS & AUTOMATION LTD. ORDER DATED 31 ST DECEMBER, 2010 WHEREIN IN PARA 5 OF THE ORDER THE TRIBUNAL HELD AS FOLLOWS: '5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, AND OTHER MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, INCLUDING THE CASE-LAW RELIED UPON BY THE PARTIES. IT IS AN UNDI SPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE HAS FILED THE AUDIT REPORT I N FORM IOCCB DURING THE COURSE OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ISSUE TH AT ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIE D IN DISALLOWING THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER S. 80IB ON THE GROUND THAT THE AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 10CCB WAS NOT FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME; OR WHETHER THE CIT(A) WAS CORRECT IN PROCEEDING ON T HE BASIS OF FORM 10CCB FILED DURING THE COURSE OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS AND DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FO R DEDUCTION UNDER S. 80IB OF THE ACT. IT IS SETTLED POSITION OF LA W, AS CONSISTENTLY HELD BY VARIOUS BENCHES OF THIS TRIBUNAL AND AS HELD IN VAR IOUS DECISIONS REFERRED TO BY THE CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, TH AT THOUGH FILING OF AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 10CCB IS MANDATORY AND PREREQUI SITE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER S. 80IB, NON-FILING OF THE SAME ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME IS ONLY A CURABLE DEFECT, AND ASSESSEE'S CLAIM FOR DEDUCTIO N HAS TO BE CONSIDERED ON ITS MERITS AS AND WHEN THE DEFECT IS CURED BY FILING FORM 10CCB. WE ARE FORTIFIED IN THIS BEHALF BY THE DECISIO N OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HEMSONS INDUSTRIES (SUPRA), RE LIED UPON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. IT IS CONTENDED BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM F OR DEDUCTION UNDER S. 80IB CAN BE ENTERTAINED AND EXAMINED ON ME RITS, WHEN THE AUDIT REPORT IS FILED BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT, WH ICH HAS NOT BEEN DONE IN THE PRESENT CASE, SINCE THE AUDIT REPORT WAS FI LED ONLY DURING THE COURSE OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH CANNOT END UP GIVING ADDITIONAL DEDUCTIONS/BEN EFITS TO THE ASSESSEE. WE DO NOT FIND MERIT EVEN IN THIS CONTENTION O F THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. IN THE CASE OF HEMSONS IND USTRIES (SUPRA), BEFORE THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, FOR ONE OF THE YEARS UNDER APPEAL BEFORE HON'BLE HIGH COURT, VIZ., ASSESSMENT YEAR 1979-8 0, AUDIT REPORT WAS FILED DURING THE COURSE OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS A ND IN RESPONSE 7 TO THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE UNDER S. 148 ISSUED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE D ECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT CITED ABOVE, AMONG OTHERS, WE FIND NO JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A). WE ACCORDINGLY UPHOLD THE SAME AND REJECT THE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL. 14. IN OUR OPINION, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, T HE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DENIED ON TECHNICALITIES WHEN THE ASSESSE E IS LEGALLY OTHERWISE ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION. AS SUCH WE ARE INCL INED TO DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS DEVOID OF MERIT 5.3 WE FIND THE BANGALORE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. VANSHEE BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS (SUPRA) HAS HELD TH AT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DENIED ON TECHNICALITIES WHEN TH E ASSESSEE IS OTHERWISE LEGALLY ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION. HOWEVER, THE TRIBUNAL HAS RESTORED THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 7.6 AS POINTED OUT EARLIER AND ALSO IN CONFORMITY WI TH THE FINDINGS OF THE (I) HONBLE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL (SUPRA) THAT [AT THE COST OF REPETITION] AND (II) IN THE CASE OF S. VENKATAIAH, T HE HONBLE BENCH OF THE HYDERABAD TRIBUNAL (SUPRA) THAT PROVISO FOURTH TO SECTION 10B(1) WHICH PROHIBITS DEDU CTION UNDER THIS SECTION IF THE RETURN IS NOT FURNISHED ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE SPECIFIED U/S.139(1) IS DIRECTORY AND NOT MAN DATORY AND, THEREFORE, RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED BY THE APPELLATE A UTHORITY IN CASE, THERE WAS GENUINE AND VALID REASON FOR THE MARGINAL D ELAY IN FILING OF RETURN. 14. IN OUR OPINION, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, T HE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DENIED ON TECHNICALITIES WHEN THE ASSE SSEE IS LEGALLY OTHERWISE ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION. AS SUCH, WE ARE INC LINED TO DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS DEVOID OF MERIT. WE WOULD LIKE TO REITERATE THAT SINCE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES NOW PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT PLACED BEFORE THE AO FOR HIS CONSIDERATION AND ALSO KEEPING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATUR AL JUSTICE AND EQUITY IN MIND, THE ISSUE REQUIRES VERIFICATION AT THE ASSESSING OFFICERS LEVEL. ACCORDINGLY, THIS ISSUE IS REMITTED BACK TO TH E FILE OF THE AO WITH A SPECIFIC DIRECTION TO LOOK INTO THE MERITS OF THE ASSESSE ES CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT AFRESH : (I) WHETHER THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY A REASONABLE CA USE, AS ATTRIBUTED BY IT IN ITS AFFIDAVITS (ABOVE), IN FURNI SHING ITS RETURN OF INCOME BELATEDLY & (II) WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS SATISFIED THE OTHER CONDITIO NS STIPULATED IN S.80IB OF THE ACT TO DETERMINE THE QUANTUM OF DED UCTION U/S.80IB OF THE ACT? 8 7.6.1 IT IS FURTHER EMPHASIZED THAT WHILE CARRYING OU T THE DIRECTIONS OF THIS BENCH REFERRED ABOVE, THE AO SHALL KEEP IN VIEW THE FINDINGS OF THE HONBLE BENCHES OF THE DELHI & HYDERABAD TRIBUNALS QU OTED ABOVE AND TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION IN THE MATTER. THE ASSESSEE ON ITS PART SHALL COOPERATE WITH THE AO IN CARRYING OUT THE DIRECTIO NS OF THIS BENCH CITED SUPRA. 5.4 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DECISIONS, WE RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21-01-2014. SD/- SD/- (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) (R.K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R PUNE, DATED : 21 ST JANUARY 2014 SATISH COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE DEPARTMENT 3. THE CIT(A), KOLHAPUR 4. THE CIT, KOLHAPUR 5. D.R. A BENCH, PUNE 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE