TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 906X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nserved. However, finding that the matter can be proceeded with in the absence of the assessee, we are doing so. The assessee, an individual, is engaged in the business of construction and of trading in shares under the name and style of M/s. Aim Financial. For the year, the assessee returned income of Rs. 58,86,739. The Assessing Officer disallowed rebate under section 88E of the Income-tax Act, amount- ing to Rs. 18,86,977 and finally assessed the assessee at Rs.60,50,000. The Assessing Officer opined that the assessee had not satisfied the third condition of section 88E of the Act in respect of the entire claim made by him in the return of income, as he had filed Forms 10DB in respect of a sum of Rs. 840 only out of the total claim of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as that forms 10DB in support of the entire claim under section 88E, as made by the assessee, were not filed along with the return of income. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the section itself requires such evidence to be filed along with the return of income and that the language of section being plain, it was required to be given a strict interpretation. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleted the disallowance, observing that the forms 10DB were filed during the assessment proceedings and that non-filing of such forms along with the return of income could not be fatal to the claim of the assessee. We do not find any error in the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). As observed by the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore the assessment is completed. In CIT v. Valli Cotton Traders P. Ltd. [2007] 288 ITR 400 (Mad), it has been held that the requirement of filing of audit report with the return is directory ; that omission to file the audit report with the original return is not to be treated as a defect ; and that deduction is not to be denied on such technical ground. In CIT v. G. Krishnan Nair [2003] 259 ITR 727 (Ker), it has been held that the condition precedent for furnishing of certificate under section 80HHC(4A) of the Act is mandatory on the condition regarding the time of furnishing it is directory ; that such certificate can be filed at any time before the completion of the assessment. Similarly, in CIT v. Panama Chemicals Works [2007] 292 ITR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
