Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Acit Cen Cir 32, Mumbai vs Lotus Surgicals P.Ltd, Mumbai on 25 July, 2018
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH "A" MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND
SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)
ITA No. 4830/MUM/2014
Assessment Year: 2012-13
ACIT, CC.32, Room No. M/s Lotus Surgicals
32(2), Ground Floor, Pvt. Ltd. B-201, Leo
Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. Apartment, 24th Road,
Road, Marine Lines, Ranghuvanshi Mill
Mumbai-400020. Compound, SB Marg,
Lower Parel (W).
PAN No. AABCL1217G
Appellant Respondent
Revenue by : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, DR
Assessee by : Mr. Satya Prakash Singh, AR
Date of Hearing : 17/07/2018
Date of pronouncement : 25/07/2018
ORDER
PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM
This is an appeal filed by the revenue. The relevant assessment year is 2012-13. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-41 [in short 'CIT(A)'], Mumbai and arises out of the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961, (the 'Act').
2. The grounds of appeal read as under:
1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the deduction u/s 80IC is allowable to the assessee M/s Lotus Surgicals 2 ITA No. 4830/Mum/2014 without taking into consideration of the fact that the return of income was filed after the due date for filing the return u/s 139(1).
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the deduction u/s 80-IC cannot be denied on technical ground when as per section 80AC of the Act, it is clearly stated that the deduction u/s 80IC is not allowed unless the assessee files his return of income within the due date specified as per section 139(1) of the Act.
3. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above ground be set aside and that the ITO/AC/DC be restored.
3. In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed his Return of Income (RoI) on 01.10.2012. The due date for filing the RoI u/s 139(1) was 30.09.2012. It is the contention of the assessee that the delay of filing the RoI by one day occurred owing to technical problem in uploading the digital signature of the Director of the assessee-company on the system of the Department.
In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the ground raised by the assessee with the following reasons:
"4.3.1. I have considered the submissions of the appellant and perused the materials available on record. It is an undisputed fact that there is delay of only 1 day in e-filing the return of income for the A.Y. under consideration in so far as the return of income due to be filed u/s. 139(1) on 30.09.2012 was actually filed electronically on 01.10.2012. However, as explained by the appellant's A.R., the delay so caused is owing to technical problem in uploading the digital signature of Director of the appellant company on the system of the Department. A perusal of copy of the screenshot downloaded from the system on 30-09-2012 clearly shows that the website of the Department was "unable to process digital signature" owing to "signature encoding error" and that the appellant was asked to "rectify the above errors" and upload the M/s Lotus Surgicals 3 ITA No. 4830/Mum/2014 return again which was done the next day. It is thus found that there was no deliberate or intentional delay or wilful negligence on part of the appellant in e-filing the return of income in view of the fact that the appellant had e-filed its return of income immediately on the following day i.e. 01.10.2012. The delay of one day in filing the return of income was not without reasonable cause. It is also noted that it was a Sunday on 30.09,2012 and attempts made by the appellant to resolve the problem by first contacting the Helpline Nos. of the Department/ TCS and then approaching its own digital signature provider company did not yield any result. It is thus seen that the appellant tried all possible ways and means in order to upload the return successfully on 30.09.2012 but this could eventually be done only on 01.10.2012. Such a default can at best be treated as a technical default which would not disentitle the appellant from its claim of deduction u/s. 80IC."
4. Before us, the Ld. DR supports the order passed by the AO and submits that there was repeated non-compliance by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings. He brought to our attention page 1-2 of the assessment order dated 27.03.2012 passed by the AO.
The Ld. DR also relies on the decision in M/s Unique Shelters Pvt. Ltd. v. UoI [WP No. 14825/2012 (T-IT)] by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and the order of the ITAT 'C' Bench Kolkata in DCIT v. M/s Singhal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 342-343/Kol/2013).
5. On the other hand, the Ld. counsel of the assessee submits that the delay of one day was caused owing to technical problem in uploading the digital signature of the Director of the assessee-company on the system of the Department. He referred to page 33 of the Paper Book (P/B) filed by him. It is further submitted that the Courts have taken a view that when delay in submitting the RoI is due to a reasonable cause M/s Lotus Surgicals 4 ITA No. 4830/Mum/2014 and beyond the control of the assessee, the deduction u/s 80IC should be allowed. Also it is stated that when RoI is filed in pursuance of a notice u/s 153A, it is to be considered as that filed u/s 139(1) and deduction u/s 80IB or 80IC should not be disallowed.
The Ld. counsel files a copy of the "Screenshot of error" reflected at the time of filing online return on 30.09.2012 at 10.30pm and subsequent e-mail written to Income Tax Department.
Also the Ld. counsel files another (P/B) containing the decision in Fiberfill Engineers v. DCIT (2017) 85 taxmann.com 27 (Delhi) and the order of the Tribunal in Surendra Ramchandra Bhatkar v. ITO, Ward-1, Ratnagiri ITA No. 1892/PN/2013, Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai v. V.N. Devadoss [2013] 32 taxmann.com 133 (Channai-Trib), Income-tax Officer, Ward-11(2), Hyderabad v. S. Venkataiah [2012] 22 taxmann.com 2 (Hyd.), Symbiosis Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. v. DCIT [2017] 87 taxmann.com 32 (ITAT Chandigarh).
6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. The contentious issue raised herein can be addressed after examining the "Screenshot of error" reflected at the time of filing online return by the assessee on 30.09.2012 at 10.30pm. We refer here to page 33 of the P/B containing a copy of the above document. As per the information reflected therein, the name of the assessee and the impugned assessment years are there. Also it is mentioned there that there was an 'error in upload of ITR' and 'signature encoding error, unable to process digital signature'. The message given to the assessee is to rectify the above error(s) and upload M/s Lotus Surgicals 5 ITA No. 4830/Mum/2014 the return again. As reflected therein, it was last accessed on 30.09.2012 at 10.30pm.
Thus there is no dispute of the fact that the assessee faced problem in filing the RoI on 30.09.2012 to the Income Tax Department on their official website: [email protected]. However, a day later on 01.10.2012, the assessee was able to successfully upload the RoI with a new digital signature. We find that the delay of one day in filing the return of income was due to technical problems which were beyond the control of the assessee.
As the assessee faced genuine difficulty in uploading the digital signature of the Director, signing the RoI because of technical problems narrated hereinbefore, we are not adverting to the case laws relied on by both sides.
In view of the above facts, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A).
7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 25/07/2018.
Sd/- Sd/-
(PAWAN SINGH) (N.K. PRADHAN)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Mumbai;
Dated: 25/07/2018
Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.
M/s Lotus Surgicals 6
ITA No. 4830/Mum/2014
Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. The CIT(A)-
4. CIT
5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. Guard file.
BY ORDER,
//True Copy//
(Dy./Asstt. Registrar)
ITAT, Mumbai