I.T.O. Ward -1(1), RAIPUR (CG) V. M/S FRIENDS CONSTRUCTION, RAIPUR

ITA 395/BIL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0215 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 23-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: G S AGARWAL HEARING CONCLUDED

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.: 395 /R PR /201 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR SMC BENCH, RAIPUR [CORAM : PRAMOD KUMAR AM ] I.T.A. NO. : 395 / R PR /201 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010 - 11 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), RAIPUR ............APPELLANT VS FRIENDS CONSTRUCTION ...........RESPOND ENT KAILASH VIHAR, DUGDHADARI MANDIR ROAD, KAILASHPURI, RAIPUR. APPEARANCES BY D K JAIN FOR THE APPELLANT G S AGARWAL FOR THE RESPONDENT HEARING CONCLUDED ON: 2 4 /0 6 /16 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 16 /0 9 /16 O R D E R BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 2 8 .0 3 .201 4 , PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A), RAIPUR (C.G.), IN THE MATTER O F ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(1 ) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR ASSESS MENT YEAR 20 10 - 11 , ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : - 1. WHETHER IN LAW AND ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN FOLLOWING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 ?. I.T.A. NO.: 395 /R PR /201 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 PAGE 2 OF 3 2. T HE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS ? 3. IN THI S CASE, THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10), AMOUNTING TO RS . 43,04,476, HAS BEEN MADE IN THE COURSE OF PROCESSING OF INCOME TAX RETURN UNDER SECTI ON 143(1) OF THE ACT. THE APPEAL WAS FILED WITHIN TIME LIMIT UNDER SECTION 139(4), AND THUS, EVEN ON MERITS, THE DISALLOWANCE WAS UNCALLED FOR. ON THESE FACTS, LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE. 4. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, AND HAVING PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, I SEE NO MERITS IN APPEAL OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ONLY ADJ USTMENT, APART FROM ARIT HMETICAL ERROR IN THE RETURN, IS AN INCORRECT CLAIM, IF SUCH INCORRECT CLAIM IS APPARENT FROM ANY INFORMATION IN THE RETURN BUT WHEN THE CLAIM IS ADMISSIBLE ON MERITS, THERE CANNOT BE ANY OCCASION TO MAKE THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER TH IS PROVISION EITHER. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE F AIRLY DOES NOT DISPUTE THE PROPOSITION THAT EVEN WHEN RETURN IS A B ELATED RETURN, DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) IS TO BE ALLOWED NEVERTHELESS. THE DISALLOWANCE WAS INDEED DEVOID OF ANY LEGALLY SU STAINABLE BASIS, AND NO BASIS HAS BEEN POINTED I.T.A. NO.: 395 /R PR /201 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 PAGE 3 OF 3 OUT TO US ANYWAY. LEARNED CIT(A) WAS QUITE JUSTIFIED IN GRANTING THE IMPUGNED RELIEF AND I UPHOLD HIS ORDER. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED UNDER RULE 34(4) OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES 1963 TODAY ON 16 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2016. SD/ - PRAMOD KUMAR (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) DATED: 16 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER ,2016. COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) GUA RD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD