Sh Bal Krishan Dhawan HUF, Amritsar. V. The Income-tax Officer, Amritsar.

ITA 235/ASR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 51209 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 25-09-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PADAM BAHL
• Keywords: Application of stay; Bonafide mistake
• Section: 244A; 234B; 80IB; 10B; 54; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL: AMRITSAR BENC H: AMRITSAR BEFORE SHRI H L KARWA, VP AND SHRI D K SRIVASTAVA, AM ITA NO. 235-236/ASR/2011 AY 2006-07 AND 2007-08 AND STAY APPLICATION NO. 15-16/ASR/2011 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 235-236/ASR/2011) BAL KISHAN DHAWAN HUF V. I.T.O. WARD 5(1), AMRITSAR PROP. M/S B.K.D ENTERPRISES 867/3, CIRCULAR ROAD, AMRITSAR PAN: AAAHB 6235 L APPELLANT BY: SHRI PADAM BAHL RESPONDENT BY: SHRI TARSEM LAL DATE OF HEARING: 12.12.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 16.12.2011 ORDER D K SRIVASTAVA : WHILE THE APPEAL BEARING ITA NO. 235/ASR/2011 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON 7.3. 2011 FOR AY 2006-07, THE OTHER APPEAL BEARING ITA NO. 236/ASR/2011 FILED BY THE AS SESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER SEPARATELY PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE S AME DATE I.E. 7.3.2011 FOR AY 2007-08. THE FACTS AS WELL AS THE GROUNDS OF APPEA L TAKEN IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL. WE THEREFORE FIND IT CONVENIENT TO DISP OSE OFF BOTH THE APPEALS BY A CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2. IN ITA NO. 235/ASR/2011, FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF AP PEAL HAVE BEEN TAKEN:- 1 THAT LD. CIT(A), AMRITSAR HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN C ONFIRMING THE ACTION OF ITO, WARD 5(1), AMRITSAR IN DISALLOWING A SUM OF RS . 58,90,160/- U/S 80IB OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ON THE GROUND THAT RETURN OF I NCOME WAS FILED BEYOND 31 ST OCTOBER, 2006. 2. THAT BOTH LD. CIT(A) , AMRITSAR AND ITO, WARD 5( 1), AMRITSAR HAVE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSES SEE WERE COMPLETE AND AUDITED U/S 80IB AND 44AB OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 A ND THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS WERE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE 31 ST OCTOBER, 2006. 3. THAT BOTH LD. CIT(A) , AMRITSAR AND ITO, WARD 5( 1), AMRITSAR HAVE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT TRUE IMPORT OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80AC OF INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961 READ WITH SECTION 139(1) FOURTH PROVI SO OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 4. THAT BOTH LD. CIT(A) , AMRITSAR AND ITO, WARD 5( 1), AMRITSAR HAVE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80I B WERE INCENTIVE PROVISIONS AND THE SAME WERE TO BE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED IN FURT HERANCE OF THE OBJECTIVE OF PROMOTING THE INCENTIVES. BAL KISHAN DHAWAN (HUF) V ITO ITAS NO. 235 AND 236/ASR/2011AND STAY APPLICATIONS NO. 15 AND 16/ASR/2011 2 5. THAT BOTH LD. CIT(A) , AMRITSAR AND ITO, WARD 5( 1), AMRITSAR HAVE GROSSLY ERRED IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234B AT RS. 5,87,345/- AND INTEREST U/S 234A AT RS. 53,395/- AND U/S 234D AT RS. 17,520/- A ND U/S 244A AT RS. 10,430/-. 3. IN ITA NO. 236/ASR/2011, THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1 THAT LD. CIT(A), AMRITSAR HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN C ONFIRMING THE ACTION OF ITO, WARD 5(1),AMRITSAR IN DISALLOWING A SUM OF RS. 30,74,852/- U/S 80IB OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ON THE GROUND THAT RETURN OF I NCOME WAS FILED BEYOND 31 ST OCOBER, 2006. 2. THAT BOTH LD. CIT(A) , AMRITSAR AND ITO, WARD 5( 1), AMRITSAR HAVE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSES SEE WERE COMPLETE AND AUDITED U/S 80IB AND 44AB OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 A ND THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS WERE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE 31 ST OCTOBER, 2006. 3. THAT BOTH LD. CIT(A) , AMRITSAR AND ITO, WARD 5( 1), AMRITSAR HAVE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT TRUE IMPORT OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80AC OF INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961 READ WITH SECTION 139(1) FOURTH PROVI SO OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 4. THAT BOTH LD. CIT(A) , AMRITSAR AND ITO, WARD 5( 1), AMRITSAR HAVE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80I B WERE INCENTIVE PROVISIONS AND THE SAME WERE TO BE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED IN FURT HERANCE OF THE OBJECTIVE OF PROMOTING THE INCENTIVES. 5. THAT BOTH LD. CIT(A) , AMRITSAR AND ITO, WARD 5( 1), AMRITSAR HAVE GROSSLY ERRED IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234B AT RS. 5,87,345/- AND INTEREST U/S 234A AT RS. 53,395/- AND U/S 234D AT RS. 17,520/- A ND U/S 244A AT RS. 10,430/-. 4. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVEYANCE, THE FACTS ARE BEING EXTRACTED FROM THE RECORDS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR AY 2006-07. PERUSAL OF THE ORD ER PASSED BY THE AO AND THE LD. CIT(A) SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED HIS RETUR N OF INCOME FOR AY 2006-07 ON 9.1.2007 IN WHICH THE DEDUCTION AMOUNTING TO RS.58, 90,160/- WAS CLAIMED U/S 80IB OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. AFTER PROCESSING, THE RET URN WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY AS A RESULT OF WHICH THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 1 0.12.2008 ASSESSING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 62,44,520/- AS AGAINST TOTAL INCOME O F R. 3,54,260/- RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT THE AO HAS DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTION AMOUNTING TO RS. 58,90,260 /- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 80IB IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80AC OF THE ACT. 5. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ENDORSED THE ORDE R OF THE AO WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- BAL KISHAN DHAWAN (HUF) V ITO ITAS NO. 235 AND 236/ASR/2011AND STAY APPLICATIONS NO. 15 AND 16/ASR/2011 3 6 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE APPELLANTS WRIT TEN SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO GONE THROUGH THE AOS ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER A PPEAL. ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80AC AS WELL AS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOURTH PROVISO TO SECTION 139 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, IT IS INCU MBENT UPON EVERY PERSON BEING AN INDIVIDUAL OR A HUF TO FURNISH ITS RETURN OF INCOME, IF HIS TOTAL INCOME WITHOUT GIVING EFFECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 10A, 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 DU E DATE FURNISH A RETURN OF HIS INCOME IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM AND VERIFIED IN T HE PRESCRIBED MANNER AND SETTING FORTH SUCH OTHER PARTICULARS AS MAYBE PRESC RIBED. FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80AC ARE REP RODUCED BELOW: 80AC WHERE IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF AN AS SESSEE OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR C OMMENCING ON THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 2006 OR ANY SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YE AR ANY DEDUCTION IS ADMISSIBLE U/S 80IA OR SECTION 80IB OR SECTION 80IB OR SECTION 80IC OR SECTION 80ID OR SECTION 80IE, NO SU CH DEDUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED TO HIM UNLESS HE FURNISHES A RETURN OF H IS INCOME FOR SUCH AY ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE SPECIFIED UNDER SUB-SE CTION (1) OF SECTION 139. IT IS AN UNDENYING FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FURN ISHED HIS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 3,54,260/- AFTER CLAIMING D EDUCTION OF RS. 58,90,260/- U/S 80IB OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ON 9.1.2007 AS AGAINST THE DUE DATE OF 31.10.2006. HENCE, THE APPELLANTS CAS E IS CLEARLY COVERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80AC OF THE INCOME-TAX AC T, 1961. IN MY VIEW, THE AO HAS RIGHTLY DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 80IB AMOUNTING TO RS. 58,90,260/- BY ESTABLISHING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80AC AND SECTION 13 9(1) R/W ITS FOURTH PROVISO. FURTHER THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT ARE NOT DIRECTLY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE APPEAL UNDER CONSIDE RATION AND THESE ARE DISTINGUISHABLE. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) , THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEAL WERE NOT FILED WITHIN THE TIME L IMIT SPECIFIED IN SECTION 139(1) AND MORE PARTICULARLY IN THE FOURTH PROVISO TO SECT ION 139(1). HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS HOWEVER FILED WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT ALLOWED U/S 139(4). RELYING UPON SEVERAL JUDGMENTS THE LD. AUTH ORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE SECTION 139(4) WAS IN T HE NATURE OF PROVISO TO SECTION 139(1) AND THAT THE DUE DATE FOR FURNISHING RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139 WOULD AUTOMATICALLY GET EXTENDED BY PERIOD PRESCRIBED U/S 139(4). IN SUPPORT OF THE BAL KISHAN DHAWAN (HUF) V ITO ITAS NO. 235 AND 236/ASR/2011AND STAY APPLICATIONS NO. 15 AND 16/ASR/2011 4 AFORESAID PROPOSITION, HE RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS IN (1) CIT-II, CHANDIGARH V. JAGRITI AGGARWAL 203 TAXMAN 203 (P&H) ; (2) FATHIMA BAI V. ITO, 32 DTR 243 (KAR); (3) CIT V. RAJESH KUMAR JALAN, 28 6 ITR 274 (GAU); AND (4) TRUSTEES OF TULSIDAS GOPALJI CHARITABLE & CHALE SHWAR TEMPLE TRUST V. CIT, 207 ITR 368 (BOM). 7 HIS SECOND SUBMISSION WAS THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80AC WERE IDENTICALLY WORDED AND THOSE OF THE FOURTH PROVISO TO SECTION 10B(1)WHICH ALSO PROHIBITED, DEDUCTION/EXEMPTION IF THE RETURN OF IN COME IS NOT FURNISHED ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE SPECIFIED U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ACIT V. DHIR GLOBAL INDUSTRIAL PVT LTD REPORTED AT 45 DTR (DEL)(TRIB)290. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 139(1) WERE DIRECTORY IN NATURE. 8. HIS NEXT SUBMISSION WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS EN TITLED TO MAKE LEGAL PRAYER ON ANY STAGE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND EVEN BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND THEREFORE THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED AFTER THE TIME LIMIT SPECIFIED IN SECTION 139(1) SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AS VERY RETURN AND THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT ALLO WED ACCORDING. IN SUPPORT OF THE AFORESAID PROPOSITION, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENT ATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS: 1 ITO V. VXL INDIA LTD. REPORTED AT 312 ITR 187 2 CIT V. GUJARAT OIL & ALLIED INDUSTRIES REPORTEDAT 201 ITR 325 (GUJ) 3 CIT V. MAGNUM EXPORT PVT LTD REPORTED AT 262 ITR 10 (CAL) 4 CIT V. MAYUR FOUNDATION REPORTED AT 274 ITR 562 (GUJ) 5. ZENITH PROCESSING MILLS V. CIT REPORTED AT 219 ITR 721 (GUJ) 6. CIT V. PUNJAB FINANCIAL CORPORATION REPORTED AT 254 ITR 6 (P&H) (FB) 7. CIT & ANR V. ACE MULTITAXES SYSTEMS PVT LTD REPO RTED AT 317 ITR 207 (KAR) 8. CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION LTD. V. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. REPORTED AT 185 ITR 230 (DEL) 9. CIT V. WEB COMMERCE (INDIA) PVT LTD. REPORTED AT 318 ITR 135 BAL KISHAN DHAWAN (HUF) V ITO ITAS NO. 235 AND 236/ASR/2011AND STAY APPLICATIONS NO. 15 AND 16/ASR/2011 5 10. CIT V. INTEGRATED DATABASES INDIA LTD. REPORTED AT 178 TAXMAN 432 (DEL) 9. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESS EE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISIONS GIVING INCENTIVES SHOULD BE LIBERALLY CO NSTRUED AS HELD IN SEVERAL JUDGMENTS, NAMELY, CIT & ANR V. PRANOY ROY & ANR RE PORTED AT 309 ITR 231, BAJAJ TEMPO LTD V. CIT REPORTED AT 196 ITR 188 (SC) AND G EM GRANITES V. CIT REPORTED AT 271 ITR 322 (SC). ACCORDING TO HIM THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 80IB WAS TO GIVE INCENTIVES TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE TECHNICALI TIES OF SECTION 80AC SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. 10. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSES SEE ALSO RELIED UPON THE CIRCULAR NO. 40 DATED 11.4.1955 ISSUED BY THE CBDT IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM THAT THE AO SHOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN THE BENEFIT OF ASSESSEES IGNORANCE AND BONAFIDE MISTAKE IN FILING THE RETURN WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT SPECIFIE D IN SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO HIM THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE CONDONED SUCH DELAY AND ALLOWED THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE. 11. IN REPLY THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) . 12. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY CO NSIDERED THEIR SUBMISSIONS. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURN ISHED HIS RETURN OF INCOME WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT SPECIFIED IN SECTION 139(1) AND MORE PARTICULARLY WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT STIPULATED BY THE FOURTH PROVISO TO SECTION 139(1) WHICH HAS BEEN INSERTED IN INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 W.E.F. 1.4.2006. IT IS HOWEVE R THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE TIME LIMIT AS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 13991) INCLU DING 4 TH PROVISO IS DIRECTORY AND ALSO THAT TIME LIMIT SPECIFIED IN SECTION 139(1) GE TS AUTOMATICALLY EXTENDED BY SECTION 139(4) OF THE ACT WHICH PERMITS TO FURNISH THE RETURN OF INCOME AT ANY TIME BARRED EXPIRY OF ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF RELEVANT AY OR BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT, WHICH EVER IS EARLIER THE CASE OF T HE DEPARTMENT, ON THE OTHER HAND, IS THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTI ON U/S 80IB IS HIT BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80AC WAS PROHIBITED DEDUCTION U/S 80IB UNLESS THE RETURN OF INCOME IS FURNISHED BEFORE THE DUE DATE SPECIFIED I N SUB-SEC (1) OF SECTION 139 OF THE ACT. 13. BARE PERUSAL OF SECTION 80AC REVEALS THAT IT HA D NOT ONLY CONTAINED THE TIME LIMIT OF CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB IS REQUIRED T O BE FILED BUT ALSO THE CONSEQUENCES THAT WOULD FOLLOW IF THE RETURN OF INC OME CONTAINING SUCH CLAIM/DEDUCTION IS NOT FILED BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF D UE DATE SPECIFIED U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT. THUS SECTION 80AC OF THE ACT PROVIDES THE CON SEQUENCES THAT WOULD FOLLOW IF THE RETURN OF INCOME CONTAINING CLAIM US 80IB IS NO T FURNISHED BEFORE THE DUE DATE BAL KISHAN DHAWAN (HUF) V ITO ITAS NO. 235 AND 236/ASR/2011AND STAY APPLICATIONS NO. 15 AND 16/ASR/2011 6 SPECIFIED IN SECTION 139(1). THE LANGUAGE OF SECTI ON 80AC IN THIS BEHALF IS QUITE CLEAR. IT IS WELL SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF CONSTRUCTIO N O STATUTE THAT THE STATUTORY ENACTMENT MUST OBVIOUSLY BE CONSTITUTE ACCORDING TO THE PLAIN MEANING AND THAT THE SCOPE OF LEGISLATION ON THE INTENTION OF LEGISL ATION CANNOT BE ENLARGED WHEN THE LANGUAGE OF THE PROVISIONS IS PLANT AND UNAMBIGUOUS . IN OUR VIEW THE LANGUAGE OF SECTION 80AC IS QUITE PLAIN AND UNAMBIGUOUS AS MUCH AS IT IS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES FOR THE CONSEQUENCES THAT WOULD FOLLOW IF THE RETUR N OF INCOME CONTAINING CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S80IB IS NOT FURNISHED BEFORE THE DUE D ATE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT. 14. IT IS QUITE APPARENT ON BARE PERUSAL OF SECTION 80AC THAT THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED THEREIN ARE MANDATORY. IN AS MUCH AS IT I S SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES FOR THE CONSEQUENCES THAT WOULD FOLLOW IF THE RETURN OF INC OME IS NOT FURNISHED WITH IN THE TIME LIMIT SPECIFIED IN SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT. IT IS WELL SETTLED IF THE ASSESSEE WANTS TO AVAIL DEDUCTION U/S 80IB HE HAS TO NECESSA RILY FURNISH HIS RETURN OF INCOME CONTAINING SUCH CLAIM BEFORE THE DUE DATE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 139(1). THE LANGUAGE OF SECTION 80AC IS NEGATIVELY WORDED IN AS MUCH AS IT PROVIDES CLEAR TERMS THAT DEDUCTION U/S 80IB SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED IF THE RETURN OF INCOME CONTAINING SUCH CLAIM IS NOT FURNISHED BY THE DUE D ATE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 139(1). IN THE FACE OF SUCH CLEAR LANGUAGE OF SECTION 80AC, WE HAVE NO HESITATION TO HOLD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80AC ARE MANDATORY I N NATURE AND THEREFORE FAILURE TO FURNISH THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED IN DUE DATE SPEC IFIED IN SECTION 139(1) WOULD DIS- ENTITLE THE ASSESSEE FOR THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB. 15. SECTION 80AC IS ALSO IN THE NATURE OF LIMIT OF TIME WITHIN WHICH THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB MUST BE PREFERRED. THE TIME LIM IT FOR PREFERRING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB IS TIME LIMIT SPECIFIED IN SECTI ON 139(1) OF THE ACT. IF THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB IS NOT MADE AS IN THE MANNER AND AS PER TIME LIMIT SPECIFIED IN SECTION 80AC,THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S80IB GET S TIME BARRED. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT AN ACT MUST BE DONE STRICTLY IN THE MANNER PRO VIDED BY LAW. IF THE LAW REQUIRES AS SECTION 80AC REQUIRES THAT DEDUCTION U/ S 80IB CANNOT BE AVAILABLE UNLESS THE RETURN IS FURNISHED BEFORE THE DUE DATE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 80AC, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION CANNOT BE ENTER TAINED IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80AC. 16. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPR ESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED HEAVILY UPON THE JUDGMENTS OF THE HON'BLE JU RISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CIT V. JAGRITI AGGARWAL, 203 ITR 203 (P&H) FOR THE PROPOSI TION THAT THE TIME LIMIT SPECIFIED IN SECTION 139(1) GETS AUTOMATICALLY EXTENDED BY TH E TIME LIMIT SPECIFIED IN SECTION 139(4). IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE HAS FURNISHED BAL KISHAN DHAWAN (HUF) V ITO ITAS NO. 235 AND 236/ASR/2011AND STAY APPLICATIONS NO. 15 AND 16/ASR/2011 7 RETURN OF INCOME BEFORE THE DUE DATE SPECIFIED IN S ECTION 139(4) OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE RETURN OF INCOME FURNISHED BY HIM SHOULD BE TAKEN AS ONE FURNISHED U/S 139(1). WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, WE FIND THAT THE AFORESAID ISSUE HAS BEEN RE NDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54 OF THE ACT. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54 AND FIND THAT THEY MATERIALLY DIFFER FOR THOSE O F SECTION 80AC. CAREFUL PERUSAL OF SECTION 54 SHOWS THAT IT DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR THE C ONSEQUENCES THAT WOULD FOLLOW. SECTION 54 MERELY DIRECTS THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT PROV IDING FOR THE CONSEQUENCES THAT WOULD FOLLOW IF THAT ACT WAS NOT DONE BEFORE THE SP ECIFIED TIME LIMIT. SECTION 80AC, ON THE OTHER HAND, SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES FOR THE CO NSEQUENCES THAT WOULD FOLLOW IF THE RETURN OF INCOME IS NOT FURNISHED BEFORE THE DU E DATE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT. SECONDLY FOURTH PROVISO TO SECT ION 139(1) SPECIFICALLY REQUIRES INTER-ALIA OF CHAPTER VIA EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM AMOUN T WHICH IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO INCOME-TAX. THE FOURTH PROVISO HAS BEEN INSERTED IN THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 W.E.F. 1.4.2006 AND IS SPECIFIED TO THE CLAIM OF DE DUCTION U/S 10A, 10B OR SECTION 10BA BY CHAPTER VIA. AS STATED EARLIER, THE MATTER BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT WAS IN THE CONTEXT OF SECTION 54 AND THEREFORE THER E WAS NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE APPLICABILITY OF 4 TH PROVISO TO SECTION 139(1) IN THAT CASE. IN THIS V IEW OF THE MATTER, THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN JAGRITI AGGARWAL (SUPRA) HAS HARDLY ANY BEARING ON THE ISSUE UNDER APPEAL. FOR SIMPLE REASONS THE JUDGMENT RELIED UPON BY THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FO R THE ASSESSEE HAVE NO RELEVANCE TO THE ISSUE UNDER APPEAL BEFORE US. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED FOR THE AFORESAID STAT ED REASONS. STAY APPLICATIONS NO. 15 AND 16/ASR/2011 17. THE ASSESSEE HAS SOUGHT STAY FROM RECOVERY OF P AYMENT ACCRUED BY THE AO AS A RESULT OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED BY HIM FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEAL. WE HAVE ALREADY DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, BOTH THE STAY APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND ARE THE REFORE DISMISSED. IN VIEW OF BAL KISHAN DHAWAN (HUF) V ITO ITAS NO. 235 AND 236/ASR/2011AND STAY APPLICATIONS NO. 15 AND 16/ASR/2011 8 THE FOREGOING, THE APPEALS AND THE STAY APPLICATION S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON .12.2011 (H L KARWA) (D K SRIVAS TAVA) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AMRITSAR, .12.2011 SURESH COPY TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT, SHRI BAL KISHAN DHAWAN (HUF) 2. THE RESPONDENT, I.T.O 3. THE CIT(A), AMRITSAR 4. THE LD. CIT, AMRITSAR 5. THE D.R., INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, AMRITSAR