RIGHT TIGHT FASTNERS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI V. ACIT-11 (1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3101/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8803 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-01-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 11-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUNIL DESH
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay; Revised return
• Section: 80IB; 139(5); 10B; 80IC; 139(1); 80IC; 13; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, MUM BAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM ITA NO. 3101/MUM/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13) RIGHT TIGHT FASTNERS PVT. LTD. 18-A/31, MANISH KAVERI, FOUR BUNGLOWS, ANDHERI (W), MUMBAI-400 053 VS. ACIT-11(1)(1) AAYAKAR R. BHAVAN, M. K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400 020 PAN/GIR NO. AADCR3024 M ( APPELLANT ) : ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI DEVENDRA JAIN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUNIL DESHPANDE DATE OF HEARING : 02.12.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.01.2021 O R D E R PER SHAMIM YAHYA, A. M.: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-18, MUMBAI (L D.CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 28.02.2018 AND PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y .) 2012-13. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER: 1. IN THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE & IN LAW, THE LEARNED C.I.T.[A], ERRED IN IGNORING THE PENDING PETITION FILED FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY WITH CBDT FOR NOT FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT. 2. 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 APPELLANT U/S 80-IC OF THE I.T. ACT 1961. THE SAID DISALLOWANCE BEING PATENTLY ILLEGAL, BAD IN LAW AND DEVOID OF MERITS THE SAME MAY PLEASE BE DELETED AND THE CLAIM MADE BY THE APPELLA NT MAY PLEASE BE ACCEPTED. 3. IT MAY PLEASE BE HELD THAT SINCE THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY REASONABLE CAUSE FROM FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y.2012-1 3 WITHIN THE STATUTORY TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED U/S.139[L] OF THE I.T. ACT 1961, THE CLA IM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IC AS MADE BY THE APPELLANT DESERVES TO BE ACCEPTED. CONSEQUENTLY THE DEDUCTION U/S.80IC AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME BE ALLOWED . 2 ITA NO. 3101/MUM/2018 (A.Y. 2012-13) RIGHT TIGHT FASTNERS PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT 4. THAT THE CONCLUSION OF THE LD CIT(A) THAT PROV ISIONS OF SEC. 8OAC ARE MANDATORY AND NOT DIRECTORY IS ERRONEOUS AND AGAINST JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS OF VARIOUS BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL, COURTS INCLUDING THE APEX COURT. 5. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED C.I.T.[A] HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSTRUED THE REASONABLE CAUSE & GENUI NE HARDSHIP IN SECTION 119(2){B) OF THE ACT LIBERALLY BY NOT GRANTING SUBSTANTIAL JUSTI CE BECAUSE OF A NON DELIBERATE DELAY. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE CO MPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND EXPORING ALL TYPES OF PRECISION N UTS, BOLTS, WASHERS, HINGES AND INDUSTRIAL/DOMESTIC FASTENERS. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2012-13 ON 08.01.2013 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 8,97,84,238/- UNDER NORMAL PROVISIONS. THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S.143(3) O F THE ACT WERE COMPLETED VIDE ORDER DATED 27.03.2015 WERE COMPLETED BY MAKING DIS ALLOWANCE OF RS.3,86,53,415/- U/S. 80IC OF THE ACT AND ASSESSING INCOME AT RS.12, 84,37,654/-. 4. IN MAKING THE AFORESAID DISALLOWANCE, THE A.O. N OTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH RETURN OF INCOME AS PER THE MANDATE OF A CT IN SECTION 30AC BEFORE THE DUE DATE PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT. HE RE FERRED TO CBDT CIRCULAR ALSO IN THIS REGARD. HIS OBSERVATIONS ARE AS UNDER: 'DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S.80IC/IE OF R S.3,86,53,415/-. IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DED UCTION U/S 80IC/IE OF RS.3,86,53,415/-. ALSO, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS NOT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME BEFORE THAT DUE DUTY PRESCRIBED U/S.139 (1) OF THE ACT. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80AC OF THE ACT, THE DEDUCTIONS UNDER SECTI ON 80IA/ 30-IB/ 80 1AB/801C ETC CANNOT BE ALLOWED UNLESS THE ASSESSEE FURNISHES A R ETURN OF HIS INCOME ON/ OR BEFORE