IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 04 & 05/Ran/2024 (Assessment Year-2018-19 & 2019-20)

(Virtual Hearing)

Surya Realcon Private Limited, DCIT, 106LA, Rameshwar Bhawan, Circle-1, Vs.

Saraidhela, Dhanbad-828127 Dhanbad.

(Jharkhand)

PAN No. AANCS 0573 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee represented by Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv.

Department represented by Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr.DR Date of hearing 07/05/2025 Date of pronouncement 07/05/2025

O R D E R

PER: BENCH

1. These appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)/learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [in short, the ld. CIT(A)] both dated 28/07/2023 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19 and 2019-20 respectively. Both these appeals have similar facts and grounds, therefore, with the consent of parties, both these appeals were clubbed and heard together and are decided by this common order. For appreciation of facts, we take ITA No. 04/Ran/2024 for the A.Y. 2018- 19 as a lead case. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

"1. That CPC Bengaluru whileprocessingthe Returnu/s143(1)(a),Rs 27,45,349/- has beendisallowedonaccountofclaimu/s801Bfornon-filingtheReturninduedate.

2. Thatthereturnwasfiledon31.03.2019,duedatewas30.09.2018.Thattheorder u/s143(1)(a)isbeingenclosed.PleaserefertotheAnnexure.

3. ThatthereturnhasbeenfileddelayedduetocontinuoustreatmentoftheDirector wholooksaftertheincometaxreturn.

4. That it is worthwhile to mention that the Audit has been completed well within timeandtheReporthasbeenuploadedalso.(CopyofForm3CAenclosed)

5. That due to serious illness of one of the directors the return could not be filed.

(CopyofDoctor'sCertificateenclosed).Thesituationwasbeyondofhiscontrol.

6. ThatthereisnomalafIdeintentionbehindit.

7. Thatthereisreasonablecausefornon-filingthereturninduetime.

8. That merely on the ground that return has been filed belatedly the exempt U/s

801Bcannotbedenied.

9. Thatitistheincentiveprovisionhastobeinterpretedinmannerastoadvancethe object of economic activities in the country & notice to deny the claims over technicalgrounds.

10. That the return filed u/s 139(4) Is to be treated as sufficient compliance in this provision of the act was expounded that subsection (1) & subsection (4)

ofsection139 have tobe read together.

11. That the due date of filing of return was 30.09.2018 and the return is filed on

31.03.2019duetovalidreasons.

12. That we had preferred an appeal before CIT(A) where the Learned appellate authorityhasrejectedoursubmissionwithoutprovidedanyvalidreasonsfortheir rejection.

13. That the Learned Appellate authority has failed to understand that the filing of return on or before due date u/s 139(1) for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s

801Bisdirectory&notmandatoryatall.

14. That for claimingdeductionU/s 80113,furnishingofreturnonor before due date u/s139(1)isdirectoryandnotmandatoryand,therefore,reliefshallbegrantedby theappellateauthorityincase,therewasgenuineandvalidreasonforthedelayin filingofreturn.

15. That there was genuine and valid reason for the delay in filing of return and moreover these provisions are directory and not mandatory.

16. That the claim of the assessee cannot be denied on technicalities when the assesseeislegallyotherwiseentitledfordeduction.

17. ThattheActdoesnotprohibitreliefwhengenuinehardshipisfaced.

18. That the assessee was prevented by a reasonable cause as attributed by it in furnishingitsreturnofincomebelatedly.

19. Thatitisclearthattheprovisioncontainedins.80ACasregardsthetimelimitfor filing the returnof income is directory but not mandatory inview ofthe aforesaid provisions ofthe Act permitting relaxation of the time limit for filing the return. It is to be distinctly understood that such relaxation is statutory in nature (as it is allowedbytheStatuteitself)andnotadministrativeincharact