The AO rejected the claim u/s. 80JJA of the Act as there was delay in filing revised return for the purpose pf claim u/s 80JJAA of the Act. The assessee filed revision application under section of the Act, which was rejected. On writ allowing the petition the Court held that denial of substantive benefit could not be justified since the assessment itself was reopened by the Assistant Commissioner and he had not given the benefit while reassessing the income of the assessee. It was precisely for dealing with such situations powers had been vested with superior officers like the Commissioner under section 264. The Commissioner ought to have allowed the revision application filed by the assessee under section 264 and the assessee was entitled to partial relief. Accordingly, the order of the Commissioner was set aside and the Assistant Commissioner directed to pass appropriate orders on the merits ignoring the delay on the part of the assessee in filing the revised return under section 139(5) and failure to furnish the audit report. (AY. 2004-05)
Craftsman Automation P. Ltd. v. CIT (2021) 435 ITR 558 (Mad.)(HC)
S. 264 : Commissioner-Revision of other orders-Delay in filing revised return claiming benefit under-Substantive benefit cannot be denied on ground of procedural formality-Delay was condoned and directed to pass a speaking order with in a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. [S. 80JJAA, 139(5), 288(2), Art. 226]