Assessee-firm, engaged in development of a Special Economic Zone, filed its return belatedly, claiming deduction under Section 80-IAB. Delay was due to mistaken belief, on the accountant\u2019s advice, that a tax audit under Section 44AB was required. On later realising that no audit was required, the return was filed. On processing under Section 143(1), the claim under Section 80-IAB was disallowed on account of belated filing. The assessee filed an application under Section 119(2)(b) seeking condonation of delay of 87 days. Principal Commissioner rejected the application, stating that the assessee failed to provide reasonable justification or documentary evidence demonstrating genuine hardship. Misconstruction of the proviso to Section 44AB, which compelled the assessee to undergo a tax audit, though otherwise not required, could not be held to be fatal to the case of the assessee. Since misconstruction of the provisions of Section 44AB by the accountant of the firm resulted in non-consideration of the genuine case of the assessee, which would result in genuine hardship as the assessee would be unable to get benefit under Section 80-IAB, rejection of the application to condone delay by the Principal Commissioner was not tenable.\u00a0 The order passed by the Principal Commissioner was quashed and set aside, and he was to be directed to pass a fresh de novo order condoning the delay that occurred in filing the return of income. (AY. 2023-24)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
S. 119: Central Board of Direct Taxes-Circular-Undertaking-Development of Special Economic Zone-Delay of 87 days-rejection of application to condone delay by Principal Commissioner was not tenable-Order passed by Principal Commissioner was quashed and set aside, and he was to be directed to pass a fresh de novo order condoning the delay occurred in filing return of income. [S.44AB,119(2)(b), 143(1), Art. 226] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-65256","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-gYw","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65256","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=65256"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65256\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":65257,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65256\/revisions\/65257"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65256"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=65256"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=65256"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}