DY CIT, CIRCLE-17(1), MUMBAI V. AHMED HUSSEIN DAWOODANI (L/H OF HUSSEIN ISMAIL DAWOODANI), MUMBAI

ITA 486/MUM/2021

AI Insights

The case involves the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, as the appellant, and Ahmed Hussein Dawoodani, the legal heir of Hussein Ismail Dawoodani, as the respondent. The dispute centers on the disallowance of a deduction claimed under Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessing Officer initially disallowed the deduction and made a significant addition to the assessee's income, which was later overturned by the CIT(A). The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision, leading to the current proceedings before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal's decision primarily focused on the procedural aspect of whether the CIT(A) had adequately addressed the Revenue's concerns regarding the belated filing of the income tax return by the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 113523 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-08-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 30-08-2023
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 30-03-2021
• Other Referred Cases: Dy. CIT v. Siroya Developers ITA No. 7246/Mum/2011, CTT vs Shelcon Properties Pvt. Ltd. 370 HR 305 (CAL), Umesh Chandra Dalakoti vs. ACIT (Dated 27th August 2012, in ITA No. 7/2012)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 80IB; 139(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "H" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 486/MUM/2021 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 17(1), Mumbai, Room No. 117, 1 st Floor, G- Block, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400051 ............... Appellant Ahmed Hussein Dawoodani, (Legal Heir of Hussein Ismail Dawoodani), 161, Bara Imam Road, Null Bazar, Mumbai - 400003 [PAN: AMGPS9508P] Vs ................ Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Department For the Respondent/Assessee : : Shri Prakash Kishinchandani Shri Syed Ashfaq Ahmed Nadeem Lassani Date Conclusion of hearing Pronouncement of order : : 31.08.2023 31.08.2023 O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. By way of the present appeal the Revenue has challenged the order, dated 16/12/2019, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-28, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year 2012-13, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had partly allowed the appeal of the Assessee against the Assessment Order, dated 27/03/2015, passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). ITA No. 486/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) 2 2. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. “On the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance u/s 80IB(10) without appreciating the fact that the assessee did not file his Return of Income u/s 139(1) of the Act. 2. On the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Dy. CIT v. Siroya Developers ITA No. 7246/Mum/2011, Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of CTT vs Shelcon Properties Pvt. Ltd. 370 HR 305 (CAL) and the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Uttrakhand in the case of Umesh Chandra Dalakoti vs. ACIT (Dated 27 th August 2012, in ITA No. 7/2012), wherein, it has been held that section 80CA is mandatory to allow the deduction claimed u/s 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 3. The relevant facts in brief are that the Assessee, an individual, filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2012-13 on 11/04/2013 declaring income of INR 15,52,697/-. The case of the Assessee was selected for scrutiny. Vide Assessment Order, dated 27/03/2015, passed under Section 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer disallowed deduction claimed by the Assessee under Section 80IB of the Act and made an addition of INR 4,11,77,177/-. 4. In appeal, the CIT(A) overturned the decision of the Assessing Officer and allowed the claim of deduction under Section 80IB of the Act vide order dated 16/12/2019. 5. Being aggrieved, the Revenue carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Learned Departmental Representative referring to paragraph 5 ITA No. 486/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) 3 of the Assessment Order submitted that the Assessing Officer had denied the deduction claimed by the Assessee under Section 80IB of the Act on the ground that the return of income for the Assessment Year 2012-13 and filed belatedly on 11/04/2013 after expiry of the times specified under Section 139(1) of the Act. Without taking the aforesaid into consideration, the CIT(A) allowed claim for deduction made by the Assessee under Section 80IB of the Act. On perusal of the order passed by the CIT(A) we find that the same is silent on the above issue highlighted by the Ld. Departmental Representative. After some arguments, the Ld. Authorised Representative for the Assessee agreed that the issue be remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication. Therefore, as pleaded by the Revenue in Ground No. 3, the order, dated 16/12/2019 passed by the CIT(A) is set aside with the direction to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal of the Assessee after taking into consideration the issue raised by the Revenue in the present appeal. The Assessee shall be granted a reasonable opportunity of being heard. In terms of the aforesaid, Ground No. 3 raised by the Revenue is allowed, while Ground No. 1 is allowed for statistical purposes. In view of the aforesaid, Ground No. 2 raised by the Revenue is dismissed as being infructuous. 7. In result, the present appeal preferred by the Revenue is partly allowed. Order pronounced on 31.08.2023. Sd/- Sd/- (B.R. Baskaran) Accountant Member (Rahul Chaudhary) Judicial Member म ुंबई Mumbai; दिन ुंक Dated : 31.08.2023 Alindra, PS ITA No. 486/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) 4 आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आय क्त/ The CIT 4. प्रध न आयकर आय क्त / Pr.CIT 5. दिभ गीय प्रदिदनदध, आयकर अपीलीय अदधकरण, म ुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आिेश न स र/ BY ORDER, सत्य दपि प्रदि //True Copy// उप/सह यक पुंजीक र /(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अदधकरण, म ुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai