Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: revised return when valid in Deepak Vegpro (P) Ltd., Alwar vs Acit, Alwar on 24 April, 2017Matching Fragments
5.3 Being aggreived, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld CIT(A) who has confirmed the addition and his findings are as under:
"8.3 I have considered the assessment order as well as submissions made by the AR along-with judicial citations given therein. The Income Tax Return was filed by the appellant on 27- 09-2009 for A.Y. 2009-10 i.e. the period under consideration. Subsequently, a revised return was filed on 21-03-2011 (after the time permissible under the law) showing the VAT reimbursement of Rs. 3,24,17,009 as capital receipt and hence not taxable. The claim made in the revised return is not valid as it has been filed after the time limit permissible under the provisions of the IT Act.
5.9 It was further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has incorrectly held that the revised return filed by the assessee on 21.03.2011 is not valid as it is filed after the time limit permissible under the IT Act. It is submitted that the time limit available for filing the revised return u/s 139(5) is one year for the end of the relevant assessment year i.e. and 275/JP/2015 & 173/JP/2016 Deepak Vegpro (P) Ltd.,Alwar Vs. ACIT, Cirle -1, Alwar 31.03.2011 and therefore the revised return filed by the assessee is as per law. Further, non-mentioning of the subsidy amount as capital receipt in Form No. 3CD by the auditor is not relevant to decide the nature of receipt of subsidy. The Ld. CIT(A) has admitted that the purpose of subsidy is to encourage all round development of state but still he treated it as a revenue subsidy for the reason that it is linked to the production and sales made by the unit. In holding so, he ignored the decision of purpose test laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. (supra) where it is categorically held that form or the mechanism through which the subsidy is given is irrelevant. Once, it is accepted, that the purpose of subsidy is all round development of the state, the nature of the subsidy clearly is a capital receipt. In view of above, the AO be directed to allow the claim of the assessee to consider the subsidy received by it as capital receipt.