2025:MHC:2997

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 09.12.2025

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

and

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER

KUMAR

T.C.A. No.143 of 2014

The Commissioner of Income tax,

Chennai. .. Appellant

Vs.vs

M/s.Gemini Communication Ltd

No.1, Dr.Ranga Road

Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018 .. Respondent

Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras ‘D’

Bench, Chennai dated 28.08.2012 in I.T.A.No.1252/Mds/2012.

For Appellant : Mr.T,Ravikumar

Standing Counsel

For Respondent : Mr.A.S.Sriraman

(Amicus Curiae)

JUDGMENT or on behalf of them. Having regard to the issues that arise for resolution, we, on 08.12.2025, have requested Mr.A.S.Sriraman to assist the Court as Amicus.

(Delivered by Dr. ANITA SUMANTH.,J)

We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel

for the appellant/Department. The assessee has been served and description printed in the cause list, however there is no representation by

2.The Tax Case (Appeal) relates to Assessment Year (AY) 2008 –

09. The following substantial questions of law have been admitted on

17.04.2014:-

‘1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in remanding the issue back to the AO especially when the assessee did not comply with Rule 11 read with Section

139D?

2.Whether the finding of the Tribunal is proper especially when CBDT Notification dated 24.07.2006 and 28.03.2008 have clearly notified new return Form are to be filed electronically and was mandatory and the assessee company having failed to do so could claim the benefit of deduction in the absence of the same?”

3.The assessee is a company that filed a return of income for AY

2008-09 on 06.11.2008, belatedly. The assessment came to be concluded on 31.12.2010 under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’). One of the issues taken up in the assessment related to denial of deduction under Section 80-1C of the Act. The Assessing Authority rejected the deduction claimed on the ground that the return filed electronically was belated, and the provisions of Section 80AC require that, for the purpose of claiming deduction under Section 80-1C of the Act, the return ought to have been filed in time.

4.The defence of the assessee was that a return of income had, in fact, been filed manually on 30.09.2008. This position has not been disputed by the Assessing Authority. However, he eschews the manual return filed, on the ground that on and from assessment year 2007-08, it was mandatory for the company to file its return electronically and no the manual return filed serves no purpose. The Assessing Authority hence concluded the assessment vide order dated 31.12.2010 rejecting the claim under Section 80-1C.

5.The first appeal filed by the assessee met the same fate and was dismissed on 19.03.2012, as against which the assessee filed a second appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short ‘Tribunal’/’ITAT’). That appeal came to be allowed on 28.08.2012, the Tribunal being of the view that the scheme for electronic filing of return of income has been framed only by the CBDT and there was nothing in the Act which made it mandatory for the assessee to file a return of income only electronically. Hence, the present appeal by the Revenue.

6.It all boils down to whether the assessee had the option of filing a manual return for assessment year 2008–09. Section 139 of the Act deals with filing of return of income, including the due date there for, and the provision does not specify any details in regard to the manner for filing of return, per se, including whether the return has to be filed electronically or manually. For this purpose, one would turn to Rule 12 of the Income tax Rules (in short ‘Rules’), that stipulates the prescription for filing of return of income and the procedure therefor.

7.The Income Tax (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 2007 came into force on 14.05.