TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RT] wherein it was held that when a relief is sought for under Section 80IB of the Act, there is no obligation on the part of the assessee to file return accompanied by the audit report, thereby, holding that the same is not mandatory. Therefore, it is clear that before the assessment is completed if such report is filed, no fault could be found against the assessee. Filing of audit report along with the return was not mandatory but directory and that if the audit report was filed at any time before the framing of the assessment, the requirement of the provisions of the Act should be held to have been met. See A.N. Arunachalam [ 1994 (1) TMI 65 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] and in CIT v. Jayant Patel [ 1998 (9) TMI 6 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] - Thu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unting to Rs.57,98,680/- for the reason that Form 10CCB was not filed electronically along with return of income filed u/s.139(1). 4. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact that Form 10CCB was filed as an attachment along with the return filed u/s.139(1) of the Income Tax Act and that the same was only an inadvertent error on the part of the appellant. 5. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that on receipt of show cause notice u/s.143(1)(a) proposing disallowance of deduction claimed u/s.80IA for non-filing of Form 10CCB electronically, the appellant rectified the inadvertent error by filing the Form 10CCB electronically along with the return filed u/s.139(5) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om Business or Profession. 12. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the said disallowance of Rs.33,898/- in the intimation passed u/s.143(1) would amount to double disallowance of the same amount as the same had already been disallowed while computing the income under the head Profits and Gains from Business or Profession for the impugned assessment year. As is evident, two issues fall for our consideration i.e., i) Assessee s claim of deduction u/s 80IA; ii) Disallowance u/s 36(i)(va) for late payment of PF dues. 2. On the issue of deduction u/s. 80IA, Ld. AR filed date-wise chart of proceedings along with paper book as under: - DATE CHART S.No Parti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... electronically 26.05.2018 1.Screenshot from Income Tax Efiling portal 2. Form 10CCB filed electronically. 26-34 8 Date of receipt of intimation u/s.143(1) 15.04.2019 Copy of intimation u/s.143(1) 35-40 9 Date of filing of Rectification u/s.154 29.05.2020 1.Screenshot from Income Tax E filing portal 2. Form 10CCB filed electronically. 41 In support of claim, Ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. G.M. Knitting Industries P. Ltd. (71 Taxmann.com 35); the decision of Hon ble Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee filed copy of Form 10CCB electronically. Still, the claim was denied by CPC vide intimation dated 15-04-2019. The assessee preferred rectification against which separate intimation was issued on 08-06-2020 wherein this deduction was again denied. This order was under challenge before Ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the action of CPC primarily by relying on the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT Vs M/s. Wipro Limited (supra). Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. We find that this issue is squarely covered in assessee s favor by the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. G.M. Knitting Industries P. Ltd. (71 Taxmann.com 35). The Hon ble Court affirmed the decision of Hon ble Mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent, the requirement of the provisions of the Act should be held to have been met. 6. That is also the consistent view of the other High Courts, including the High Court of Bombay in CIT v. Shivanand Electronics [1994] 209 ITR 63/75 Taxman 93 (Bom.), apart from Gujarat High Court in Zenith Processing Mills v. CIT [1996] 219 ITR 721 (Guj.) and Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Mahalaxmi Rice Factory [2007] 294 ITR 631/163 Taxman 565 (Punj. Har). 7. The Calcutta High Court in the case in the CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 503/[2003] 126 Taxman 435 (Cal.) has also concurred with the said view which was followed by the Tribunal in this case. 8. Mr. T. Ravikumar, the learned counsel for the appellant is not abl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
