Subscribe to the Bombay Chartered Accountant Journal Subscribe Now!

September 2015

[2015] 69 SOT 25 (Chennai) DCIT vs. Sucram Pharmaceuticals ITA Nos. 804 & 806 (Mds)of 2014 Assessment Years: 2010-11 and 2011-12. Date of Order: 18th August 2014

By C. N. Vaze
Shailesh Kamdar
Jagdish T. Punjabi
Bhadresh Doshi Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 3 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
Sections 80AC, 80IC – For AY 2010-11, where a manual return was furnished before due date while electronic return was filed after due date, provision of section 80AC, so as to claim deduction u/s. 80IC was complied with.

Where without a plausible reason, return of income was not filed before due date, assessee would not be entitled to claim deduction u/s. 80IC.

Facts:
The assessee company filed its return of income, for AY 2010-11, manually in a physical form, on 9th September, 2010. Subsequently, on January 25, 2011 an electronic return was furnished. The assessee had claimed deduction u/s. 80IC of the Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed Rs. 61,93,667 claimed by the assessee as deduction u/s. 80IC of the Act on the ground that the assessee had failed to file the return of income in electronic mode within due date specified u/s. 139(1) of the Act.

For assessment year 2011-12, the assessee filed its return of income electronically on 12th December, 2011. The assessee had claimed deduction u/s. 80IC. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of deduction u/s. 80IC on the ground that the assessee had failed to file the return of income within due date specified u/s. 139(1) of the Act.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeals to CIT(A) who allowed the appeals on the ground that the fault was only technical which was beyond the control of the assessee.

Aggrieved, the revenue preferred an appeal to the Tribunal.

HELD
Since Rule 12(3)(ab) requiring the assessee to file return of income electronically was amended with effect from AY 2010-11, the Tribunal accepted the contention of the assessee that the accountants/tax consultants of the assessee, due to oversight, missed the amendment in the Rules. The Tribunal noted that, however, the manual return was filed before due date specified in section 139(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction u/s. 80IC if otherwise it has complied with the conditions laid down in section 80IC of the Act. Since the AO had not examined the genuineness of the claim of the assessee u/s. 80IC, it remitted the file back to the AO to consider the claim of the assessee u/s. 80IC and allow the same, if the assessee has complied with the conditions required to be satisfied.

However, for assessment year 2011-12, the assessee contended that the tax consultants of the assessee were not fully aware of the fact that the return has to be filed before 30th September of every year. The Tribunal noted that no manual return was filed as in assessment year 2010-11 and also no plausible reason was given by the assessee for furnishing return after the elapse of due date. It observed that since assessment year 2010-11 was the first year in which, furnishing of return electronically under digital signature was made mandatory there were chances that the tax consultants may not be aware of the amended provisions. The benefit of ignorance of the tax consultants was given to the assessee in assessment year 2010-11. After committing the mistake once, if the same mistake is committed again in the next assessment year, it is unpardonable. The Tribunal was of the opinion that the assessee does not deserve any clemency. It held that the assessee had not complied with the provisions of section 80AC and is thus not eligible to claim deduction u/s. 80IC.

The appeal filed by the revenue were allowed.

You May Also Like