M/S East Bourne Hotels Pvt. Ltd, V. Asstt.Commissioner of income Tax, Shimla

ITA 301/CHANDI/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4758 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 4 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-08-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 05-08-2019
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 23-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHANDRA KANTA
• Assessee Lawyers: SUBHASH AGGARWAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 143(1); 54; 2; 139

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BEN CH B, CHANDIGARH .., !' '# $, % &' BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VP & SHRI , SANJAY GARG, JM ITA NO. 301/CHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 M/S EAST BOURNE HOTELS PVT. LTD. KHALINI, SHIMLA, H.P ASSTT. CIT , CIRCLE SHIMLA PAN NO: AAACE3602K APPELLANT RESPONDENT !' ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. SUBHASH AGGARWAL #!' REVENUE BY : SMT. CHANDRAKANTA $ %! & DATE OF HEARING : 05/08/2019 '()*! & DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09/08/2019 &(/ ORDER PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), SHIMLA, H.P. DT. 05/02/2015. 2. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEA L: 1. THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT U/S 80IC IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE CLAIM STOOD ALL OWED BY HER PREDECESSOR IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR. 2. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM U/S 80IC ON THE GROUND THAT THE RETURN WAS NOT FILED U/S 139(1) IGN ORING THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND THE JUSTIFICATION FILED BY THE APPELLANT FOR LATE F ILING OF RETURN. 3. THAT IN ANY CASE THE DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM IS AG AINST THE LAW AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE FOR PERMISSION TO A DD, AMEND OR ALTER ANY GROUND OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. FROM THE AFORESAID GROUNDS, IT IS NOTICED THAT T HE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE REJECTION OF CLAIM UNDER SE CTION 80IC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ACT), FOR T HE REASON THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED LATE AND NOT UNDER SECTION 139(1) ACT. 4. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE E-FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 26/03/2011 SHOWING NIL INCOME AFTER CLAIMING DED UCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,19,92,957/- WHICH WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT, AND THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WA S REJECTED FOR THE REASONS THAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN WAS NOT FILED WITHIN THE T IME ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 139(1) 2 OF THE ACT. LATER ON THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRU TINY. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT AND SUBMITT ED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT MAY BE READ ALONGWITH THE PROVISIONS UNDER SECTION 139(4) OF THE ACT. THE A.O. HOWEVER, DID NOT FIND M ERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND DISALLOWED THE CLAIM BY OBSERVING THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80AC OF THE ACT CLEARLY STATES THAT NO DEDUCTION UN DER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT WILL BE ALLOWED IF THE RETURN OF INCOME IS NOT FURN ISHED ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE SPECIFIED UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A), WHO SUSTAINED THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE A.O. 6. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 7. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ORDER DT. 04/10/2017 IN ITA NO. 501/CHD/2017 OF THE ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S SYMBIOSIS PHARMACEUTICALS P. LTD. VS. DCIT, CIRCLE, YAMUNA NAGAR (COPY OF THE SAID ORDER WAS FURNISHED WHICH IS PLACED ON THE RECORD). 8. IN HER RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LD. SR. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT TH E TIME WITHIN WHICH THE RETURN OF INCOME IS TO BE FURNISHED AS INDICATED ONLY IN S UB SECTION 1 OF SECTION 139 OF THE ACT AND NOT IN SUB SECTION 4 OF THE SAID SECTIO N. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CA SE OF PRAKASH NATH KHANNA VS. CIT REPORTED AT 266 ITR 1. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE P ARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IT IS NOTICED THA T A SIMILAR ISSUE HAVING IDENTICAL FACTS WAS A SUBJECT MATTER OF ADJUDICATION IN THE C ASE OF M/S SYMBIOSIS PHARMACEUTICALS P. LTD. VS. DCIT(SUPRA) WHEREIN VID E ORDER DT. 04/10/2017 IN ITA NO. 501/CHD/2017 THE RELEVANT FINDINGS HAVE BEEN GI VEN IN PARA 6.3 TO 6.7 WHICH READ AS UNDER: 6.3. WE ARE CALLED UPON TO DECIDE IN THE FACTS OF T HE PRESENT CASE WHETHER THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IC IN THE FACTS OF THE P RESENT 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 SE T 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 ID. CIT-D R IS THAT THE RETURN OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FILED WELL WITHIN THE EXTENDED DUE DAT E U/S 139(4) I.E. ON 29.09.2013. 6.4 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT FINDINGS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND WE FIND THAT THE RELEVANT DOCUME NTS IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION WERE AVAILABLE BEFORE THE TAX AUTHORIT IES WELL WITHIN TIME NAMELY BOOK AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO. 29B AND TAX AUDIT REP ORT IN FORM NO. 3CA/3D ON 3 29.09.2013, AUDIT REPORT U/S 80IC ALONG WITH BALANC E SHEET ETC. CONSEQUENTLY, THE OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY AND THE OP PORTUNITY 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 HAV E ELABORATELY DISCUSSED IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER. ON CONSIDERATION TH EREOF, WE FIND THAT THE DAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE WHERE THE FILING OF THE RETURN WAS DELAYED FOR REAS ONS 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 TA X AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF VARIOUS REGULATORY AUTHORITIES WERE PREPARED AND FI LED 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 LIT ERAL 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 O F 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 TH AT RETURN FILED LATE CAN ONLY BE CONSIDERED IF THE DELAY IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE R EVENUE, CANNOT BE CONCURRED WITH. IN THE FACE OF DECISIONS WHICH HOLD THAT THE SAID PROVISION IS A MACHINERY PROVISION, THEN THIS INTERPRETATION CANNOT APPLY ON LY TO CASES WHERE DELAY IS ATTRIBUTABLE ONLY TO THE REVENUE. THE SAID INTERPRE TATION WOULD BE UNIVERSALLY AVAILABLE AS PER FACTS TO BOTH THE SIDES. TO HOLD T HAT THE CAUSE FOR DELAY CAN BE GONE INTO, ONLY IF DELAY IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE REV ENUE 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 ADEQUAT E REASONS DEMONSTRATED BY THE REVENUE THEN EVEN WHERE DELAY OCCURS FOR REA SONS 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 DECI SIONS RELIED UPON BY THE ID. AR, WHY THEY SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED. ONCE IT HAS BEEN HE LD THAT SECTION 80AC IS A MACHINERY PROVISION, THEN THE ISSUE IS TO BE CONSID ERED IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS AVAILABLE. THE LEGAL POSITION THAT THE RELEVANT PRO VISION IS A MACHINERY PROVISION, APPLYING THE PRINCIPLES THAT BEING DIRECTORY IN NAT URE ENABLES THE AUTHORITIES TO CONSIDER THE REASONS, CONSISTENTLY ON RECORD FOR LA TE FILING OF THE RETURN. A PERUSAL OF THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI JAGB IR SINGH S/O SHRI OM PAL, MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ON REC ORD. 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.MALHO TRA 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 FILI NG 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 SHAREHOL DING IN M/S SAITECH, THE ROUTINE EXERCISE NORMALLY DONE BY THE TAX CONSULTAN T WITHOUT ANY FOLLOW UP OR SUPERVISION AS DIGITAL SIGNATURES HAD BEEN ENTRUSTE D TO THE TAX CONSULTANT FOR UPLOADING OF DOCUMENTS ETC. IN THE INCOME TAX PORTA L, 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 O F 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 SYMBIOSI S 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 W AS ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF THE COMPANY. ON THIS VERY DATE I.E. 09.08.2013 WE H ANDED OVER THE DIGITAL SIGNATURES OF THE DEPONENT TO OUR AUDITOR AND TAX.C ONSULTANT CA A.S. MALHOTRA FOR FILING INCOME TAX RETURN AND OTHER REPORTS ON T HE INCOME TAX PORTAL AS RETURNS 4 AND ALL AUDIT REPORTS HAD TO BE COMPULSORILY E-FILE D. WE CAME TO KNOW ABOUT THE FACT THAT TAX AUDIT REPORT AND BALANCE SHEET WITH A NNEXURES WERE FILED ON 29-9- 2013 AND REPORT U/S 80-IC ON FORM 10CCB 1 Q 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 E TC 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 AL SO HANDED OVER TO HIM ALONGWITH BOARD RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING HIM TO USE A ND AFFIX OUR DIGITAL SIGNATURES ON THE DOCUMENTS TO BE SUBMITTED TO INCOME TAX DEPA RTMENT. 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 PHARMACEUTICAL S (P) LTD. AND A FEW OTHER SHAREHOLDERS, THIS COMPANY IS ALSO HAVING TWO SHARE HOLDERS NAMELY SH. RAJAT BHALOTIA AND HIS FATHER SH. P.D. BHALOTIA WITH 12.6 6% AND 3.82% SHARES RESPECTIVELY. THESE SHAREHOLDERS HAVE FILED A SUIT WITH COMPANY L AW BOARD, DELHI AGAINST THE MAJOR SHAREHOLDER I.E. SYMBIOSIS PHARMACEUTICAL S (P) LTD. AND OTHER SHAREHOLDERS INCLUDING THE DEPONENT. WE SUSPECTED COLLUSION OF OUR AUDITORS WITH THESE T WO DISSENTING SHAREHOLDERS AS OUR AUDITOR WAS ALSO AUDITOR AND TAX CONSULTANT OF WONDER PRODUCTS, NAHAN ROAD, MOGINAND, KAL AMB, DISTT. NAHAN; A FIRM OF TH ESE TWO PERSONS/ THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS. THE SUSPICION IS ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT TH AT RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS FILED LATE WHEN BALANC E 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 DC!T IN O UR 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 O UR TAX CONSULTANT CA. A.S. MALHOTRA; WHO DID NOT GIVE ANY SATISFACTORY REPLY F OR DELAY IN FILING OF INCOME TAX RETURN AND WE ASKED FOR HIS RE SIGNATION AND CHANGED OUR CONSULTANTS AS WELL AS AUDITORS OF BOTH THE COMPANI ES. 'HIS REPLIES CONFIRMED OUR SUSPICIONS THAT HE IS IN HAND WITH GLOVE WITH MR. B HALOTIA AND THE MISCHIEF I.E. NON FILING OF ITR IN TIME WAS CARRIED ON US AT THE BEHE ST OF MR. BHALOTIA. 6. THAT WE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ADD THAT BHALOTIAS HA D FILED THE CASE ONLY IN JULY 2015 AFTER WE ISSUED SEVENTY SIX LAKH SHARES OF 'SA ITECH MEDICARE PRIVATE LIMITED' TO SYMBIOSIS PHARMACEUTICALS (P) LTD. HE WAS SHOWIN G 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 COMPA NY LAW BOARD; WHICH CASE HAS SINCE BEEN TRANSFERRED TO NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH IN FEBRUARY, 2017; WE HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO HO LD AGM OF 'SAITECH MEDICARE PRIVATE LIMITED' SINCE 2015. WHENEVER WE T RIED TO HOLD AGM; MR. BHALOTIA INVOKED CLB WHICH RESTRAINED US FROM HOLDI NG AGM AND ULTIMATELY WE HAD TO GIVE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE CLB OF NOT HOLDIN G ANY AGM WITHOUT ITS PERMISSION. 7. THAT WE ARE NOT CONVERSANT WITH THE INCOME TAX A CT, 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. W E 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 C OMPANY BUT DUE TO OUR TAX CONSULTANT. 6.5 ACCORDINGLY, IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE, AS WE HAVE DISCUSSED AT LENGTH AND SEEN FROM THE RECORD, WE AR E 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 REAS ONABLE CAUSE IN THE LATE FILING OF THE RETURN WITHIN THE EXTENDED PERIOD AS STATUTO RILY AVAILABLE UNDER SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 139 OF THE ACT. THE DECISION RENDERE D IN THE CASE OF P.BHAVANI, WE FIND, ON FACTS IS NOT APPLICABLE AND IS ENTIRELY DI STINGUISHABLE SINCE WE CONCUR WITH THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE ID. AR THEREON SAME A RE NOT BEING REPEATED HERE. SIMILARLY, WE FIND THAT THE DECISION IN THE C ASE OF M/S LAKSHMI ENERGY & FOODS LTD. ALSO HAS NO ROLE TO PLACE AS IN THE FACT S OF THAT CASE, NOT ONLY THE RETURN WAS FILED BEYOND THE EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME STATUT ORILY AVAILABLE UNDER SUB- SECTION (4) OF SECTION 139 BUT EVEN OTHERWISE, THE SAID RETURN WAS NOT SUPPORTED 5 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 PROCEE DINGS. 6.6 THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, AS IS EVIDENT FR OM 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 ACT I S EVIDENT FROM A READING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF. WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE PRIN CIPLE 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 APPL ICABLE TO THE CASE AT HAND ALSO AND INFACT THE DECISION OF THE DELHI BENCH OF THE I TAT IN THE CASE OF HANSA DALAKOTI AND FIBERFILL ENGINEERS (CITED SUPRA) RELY ING 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.VE NKTIAH, (CITED SUPRA) AND ANOTHER ORDER OF THE DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF DHE ER 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 T HE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF RAJWINDER KAUR MAHAL (STATED SUPRA) WHEREIN CONSIDE RING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54 AFTER CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF THE APEX C OURT IN THE CASE OF PRAKASH NATH KHANNA AND ALSO CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF TH E 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. T HE ORDER IN THE CASE OF HEERA MOTI AGRO INDUSTRIES (CITED SUPRA) ALSO DESERVES A MENTION. 6.7. ACCORDINGLY, CONSIDERING THE PECULIAR FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND POSITION OF LAW AS CANVASSED BY THE PARTIES BEF ORE THE BENCH, WE HOLD THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE OUSTED ON TH E 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 PRINC IPLE. THE MATTER IS REMANDED TO THE AO FOR THE PURPOSES OF VERIFICATION. NEEDLES S TO SAY THAT THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE GIVEN A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. SO RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID REFERRED TO ORDER, THE ISSUE IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09/08/2019 ) SD/- SD/- '# $ .., (SANJAY GARG ) ( N.K. SAI NI) % &'/ JUDICIAL MEMBER / VICE PRESIDENT AG DATE: 09/08/2019 (+! ,-.- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. $ / CIT 4. $ / 01 THE CIT(A) 5. -2 45&456789 DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 8:% GUARD FILE