Manish Soni, Jorhat V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4 , Jorhat

ITA 230/GTY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0562 (ITAT-GUWAHATI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-06-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 24-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T. HMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: ANIL KR. AGARWAL
• Section: 139; 143(3); 143(1); 139(1); 139(4)

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 230/GAU/2019 MANISH SONI IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GUWAHATI BENCH , E COURT AT KOLKATA ( ) . . , . , ) [BEFORE SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM ] I.T.A. NO. 230/GAU/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2015-16 MANISH SONI PAN: AVLPS 8876N VS. THE ITO, WARD 4, JORHAT APPELLANT RESPONDENT DATE OF HEARING 15.06.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 17.06.2020 FOR THE APPELLANT SHRI ANIL KR. AGARWAL, FCA, LD.AR FOR THE RESPONDENT SHRI T. HMAR, JCIT, LD. SR. DR ORDER PER SHRI A.T.VARKEY, JM THIS IS AN APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINS T THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS), JORHAT DATED 22-01-2019 FOR THE AY 2015-16. 2. THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE AS SESSEE IS ONLY GROUND NO. 1, WHICH READS AS UNDER:- FOR THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIE D TO CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWING CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/ S. 80-IE AMOUNTING TO RS. 18,44,653/- ON THE GROUND OF DELAY IN FILING OF RET URN, IGNORING THE CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING TO THE DELAY. 3. THE AO NOTES THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURING OF SOYA CHUNKS IN ITS INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING SITUATED AT KOTHKOTIA GA ON, P.O DHUKLANGIA, DIST; JORHAT IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S. SONI INDUSTRIES (PROP: MANIS H SONI) AND HAVING ITS OFFICE AT CHAMBER ROAD, JORHAT-785 001. THE AO NOTES THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS STARTED ITS MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES FROM 25-11-2012 AND CLAIME D DEDUCTION U/S. 80IE IN THE AY 2013- 14. THUS, THE AO ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THIS IS THE THIR D YEAR OF ASSESSEES TOTAL TEN YEARS ELIGIBILITY CLAIM U/S. 80IE OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ( IN SHORT, REFERRED TO THE ACT). THE 2 ITA NO. 230/GAU/2019 MANISH SONI AO NOTES THAT HE HAS VERIFIED AND EXAMINED THE AUDI T REPORT IN FORM NO. 10CCB. HE NOTES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN NET INCOME FROM THE BU SINESS AT RS. 18,44,453/- AND THE ENTIRE AMOUNT WAS CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION U/S. 80IE OF THE AC T. THE AO ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT/DOCUMEN TS, WHICH WERE TEST CHECKED AND EXAMINED BY HIM WITH REFERENCE TO THE DETAILS FURNI SHED DURING COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER, THE AO NOTES THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD FILED E-RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY 2015-16 BELATEDLY ON 25-01-2016, WHICH IS AFTER THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME U/S. 139(1) OF THE ACT (I.E. 30.10.2015). A CCORDING TO THE AO, HE ISSUED NOTICE TO ASSESSEE SHOW CAUSING AS TO WHY THE CLAIM FOR DEDUC TION UNDER CHAPTER VIA SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED FOR NOT FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME WITHIN D UE DATE AS PER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT. PURSUANT TO THE NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT H E WAS UNDER SERIOUS DOMESTIC PROBLEMS AND, THEREFORE, WAS DISTURBED MENTALLY AND COULD NO T FILE THE RETURN ON TIME AND PRAYED BEFORE HIM TO CONSIDER HIS CASE SYMPATHETICALLY. H OWEVER, THE AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM AND ADDED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 18,44,653/- TO THE TOTAL INC OME OF ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO WAS PLEASED TO CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE AO. ACCORDING TO THE LD. CIT(A), IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON AN ASSESSEE TO FURNISH ITS RETURN OF INCOME BEFORE DUE DATE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT, IF HE IS CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S. 80IE OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, HE CONFIRMED THE O RDER OF THE AO. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. 4. WE NOTE THAT THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THAT THE ASSES SEE IS MANUFACTURING SOYA CHUNKS FROM 25-11-2012 AND HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 80IE OF THE ACT IN THE AY 2013-14 AND THIS YEAR (AY 2015-16) IS THE THIRD YEAR OF ASSESSEES C LAIM U/S. 80IE OF THE ACT. THE AO HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT HE HAS VERIFIED AND EXAMINED THE CLAIM AND PERUSED THE AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO. 10CCB AND ALSO GONE THROUGH THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNT AND DOCUMENTS AS CALLED FOR BY HIM TO EXAMINE THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSE SSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN THIS CASE THE AO HAS NOT FOUND ANY FACTS, WHICH COULD HAVE DIS-ENTITLED THE ASSESSEES ELIGIBILITY CLAIM FOR SECTION 80IE DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER VI OF THE ACT. THE AO HAS DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTION ONLY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME ON OR 3 ITA NO. 230/GAU/2019 MANISH SONI BEFORE 31-10-2015 AND HAS FILED ONLY ON 25-01-2016 (AFTER 2 MONTHS). ACCORDING TO US, FROM THE FACTS NARRATED ABOVE, IF THE RETURN OF INC OME WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE 31- 10-2015 THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE CLAIMED THE DEDUCTI ON AND IT COULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED BY THE AO. HOWEVER, SINCE THERE WAS DELAY OF 2 MONTH S, THE AO HAS DISALLOWED THE CLAIM. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THE C LAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IE FOR THE AY 2013-14 U/S. 143(1) OF THE ACT AND FOR THE SECOND Y EAR FOR THE AY 2014-15 U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. SINCE THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80IE WAS OTHERWISE AL LOWABLE ON MERITS, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE DENIED THE DEDUCTION MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSE SSEE HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME BELATEDLY. FOR THIS PROPOSITION, WE RELY ON THE DE CISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF FIBERFILL ENGINEERS VS. DCIT REPORTED I N (2017) 299 CTR (DEL) 173/(2017) 157 DTR (DEL) 330. WE NOTE THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER:- 32. IN THE PRESENT CASE, SINCE THE ENTITLEMENT OF THE PETITIONER TO THE DEDUCTION UNDER S. 80-IC OF THE ACT EVEN FOR ASST. YR. 2010-1 1HAS NOT BEEN QUESTIONED BY THE DEPARTMENT ON MERITS, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR NOT VIEWING THE DELAY OF 46 DAYS IN FILING THE RETURN TO BE BONA FIDE. IT IS NOT ONE OF THOSE CASES WHERE THE DELAY IS SO EXTRAORDINARY SO AS TO NOT BE CONDONED. 5. WE NOTE THAT IN THE AFORESAID CASE THE TRIBUNAL HAD ANSWERED THIS QUESTION BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 25. IN ITS ORDER DT. 25TH FEB., 2016, THE TRIBUNAL ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS (A) AND (B) ABOVE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER DISCUSSING TH E EVIDENCE. THE TRIBUNAL THEN TURNED TO QUESTION (C) REGARDING THE DELAY IN FILING THE R ETURN IN THE CONTEXT OF SS. 80AC AND S. 139(4) OF THE ACT. IN PARA 57 OF THE ORDER THE TRIB UNAL CONCLUDED: '57. A BARE PERUSAL OF THIS SECTION MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE LEGISLATURE ITSELF HAS ALLOWED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE RETURN BELATEDLY SUBJECT TO FU LFILLMENT OF CONDITIONS WRITTEN IN THE SAID SECTION. THEREFORE, ONCE THOSE CONDITIONS ARE MET, THEN RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WOULD FOR ALL TECHNICAL PURPOSES BE CONSIDERED BEIN G FILED UNDER S. 139(1). THUS, KEEPING IN VIEW THE VARIOUS DECISIONS NOTED EARLIER , WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO DENY THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND OF FILING THE R ETURN BELATEDLY.' 26. THUS, THE TRIBUNAL ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE AS SESSEE FOR ASST. YR. 2010-11 BOTH ON MERITS AS WELL AS ON THE GROUND OF THE DELAY IN FIL ING THE RETURN. 6. WE NOTE THAT BOTH THE AO & LD. CIT(A) COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY FACTS WHICH COULD HAVE DIS-ENTITLED THE ASSESSEES ELIGIBILITY FOR D EDUCTION U/S. 80IE OF THE ACT AND MERELY ON DELAY OF 2 MONTHS IT CANNOT BE DENIED TO IT. A B ARE PERUSAL OF SECTION 139 OF THE ACT MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE PARLIAMENT IN ITS WISDOM H AS ALLOWED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE RETURN OF 4 ITA NO. 230/GAU/2019 MANISH SONI INCOME BELATEDLY SUBJECT TO FULFILLMENT OF CONDITIO NS AS PRESCRIBED IN THE SAID SECTION 139 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, ONCE THOSE CONDITIONS ARE MET/F ULFILLED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEN RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED BEING FILED U/ S. 139(1) OF THE ACT. IT IS NOTED THAT THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IE FO R THE AY 2013-14 U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT AND FOR THE SECOND YEAR FOR THE AY 2014-15 U/S 143( 3) OF THE ACT. SINCE THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80IE OF THE ACT WAS OTHERWISE ALLOWABLE ON MERITS, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE DENIED THE DEDUCTION MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME BELATEDLY. KEEPING IN MIND THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF FIBERFIL ENGINEERS (SUPRA), WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO DENY THE CLA IM OF ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND OF FILING RETURN OF INCOME BELATEDLY. IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE F ACTS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80IE OF THE AC T SHOULD BE ALLOWED AND WE DIRECT THE AO TO DO SO. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17TH JUNE, 2020. SD/- SD/- (DR. A. L. SAINI) (ABY. T. VARKEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 17TH JUNE, 2020 **PP(SR.P.S.) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT MANISH SONI M/S. SONI INDUSTRIES, CHA MBER ROAD, JORHAT, ASSAM-785001. 2 RESPONDENT I.T.O., W-4, JORHAT. 3. 4. CIT(A), JORHAT CIT, JORHAT DR, ITAT, GUWAHATI. 5. / TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, SENIOR PVT. SECY.