TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 882X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned Senior DR and Shri S.S. Deshpande, learned counsel for the assessee. The crux of arguments on behalf of the Revenue is identical to the ground raised by further submitting that before the Assessing Officer the assessee company took the stand that the assessee is not required to get its accounts audited under the then provisions of the Act and took a different stand before the learned first appellate authority. The assessment order was defended. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the assessee defended the impugned order. 4. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Before coming to any conclusion, we are reproducing hereunder the relevant portion of the order of the learned CIT(A) : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not mandatory but directory and if the audit report is filed at any time before the framing the assessment, requirement of section 80IA(7) would be met . Thus, the appellant had set up an independent undertaking Unit-II for manufacturing of micronutrient fertilizer, which was not an expansion of earlier unit and also fulfils other conditions of section 80IA(2) of the Act. Therefore, in view of the above, I am of the opinion that the appellant was eligible for claiming deduction u/s 80IA. Hence, the A.O. is directed to allow deduction u/s 80IA of ₹ 11,10,057/-. Accordingly, these grounds of appeal are allowed. 2.1. The facts, in brief, are that, during the relevant period, the assessee company was carrying on the business of for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... port before framing the assessment, we are of the view that the Assessing Officer wrongly disallowed the claim of the assessee. As per provisions of section 80IA(7), requiring filing of audit report alongwith the return is not mandatory rather it is directory and if the audit report is filed at any time before framing the assessment, the required conditions are considered to be fulfilled. Our view is fortified by the decision in CIT vs. ACE Multitaxes Systems (P) Ltd. (2009) 317 ITR 307 (Kar.); CIT vs. Medicaps Limited (2010) 323 ITR 554 (MP); AKS Alloys Pvt. Ltd. (2012); 18 Taxman.com 25(Mad.); CIT vs. A.N. Arunachalam; 75 Taxman 529 (Mad.). The sum and substance of these decisions is that audit report can be filed with the revised return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
