TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 80IA(7) would be met observing. Similar view has been taken in the case of PCIT vs. Surya Merchands Ltd. [ 2016 (5) TMI 947 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] and in the case of CIT Vs. Sanjay Kumar Bansal [ 2013 (7) TMI 87 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] and ACE Multi Taxes Systems Pvt. Ltd. [ 2009 (1) TMI 260 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] . Thus we hold that filing of audit report in Form 10CCB before the due date for filing of return of income u/s 139(1) is only directory and not mandatory for the year under consideration . Thus, we direct the AO to allow deduction claimed u/s 80IA. Grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. - SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Assessee : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s High Courts including the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Contimeters Electricals Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.1366/2008 dated 02.12.2008 submits that filing of audit report along with the return of income before the due date specified u/s 139(1) is only directory and not mandatory and since the assessee has filed Form 10CCB along with the revised return the claim for deduction u/s 80IA should not have been disallowed. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that similar view has been taken by the Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. AKS Alloys Pvt. Ltd. 18 taxmann.com 25 and this decision was also affirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. GM Knitting Industries Pvt. Ltd. 71 taxmann.com 35. 4. Ld. DR pla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ongly allowed. The CIT(A), therefore, cancelled the assessment which had been earlier framed and directed the AO to complete the assessment as per law, in terms of the directions given in the said order. Being aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal which was allowed by the Tribunal by virtue of the impugned order. The Tribunal took the view that the provisions of section 80IA(7) with regard to filing of the audit report along with the return were not mandatory and were merely directory. In coming to such conclusion, the Tribunal referred to the decisions of the Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Gujarat Oil Allied Industries, 201 ITR 325 (Guj.). In that decision the provisions of Section 80J(6A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eport is filed at any time before the framing of the assessment, the requirement of section 80IA(7) would be met. 6. We find that similar view has been taken by the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. AKS Alloys Pvt. Ltd. (supra), wherein it has been held as under: 5. In so far as it relates to the substantial question of law (1) is concerned, namely, whether the filing of audit report in Form 10CCB is mandatory, it is well settled by a number of judicial precedents that before the assessment is completed, the declaration could be filed. In fact, the said issue came to be decided by the Karnataka High Court in the case in CIT v. ACE Multitaxes Systems (P.) LTD. [2009] 317 ITR 207 (Kar.), wherein it was held that when ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said view which was followed by the Tribunal in this case. 8. Mr. T. Ravikumar, the learned counsel for the appellant is not able to produce any other judgement contrary to the above said views consistently taken. 9. In the light of the above, by virtue of hierarchy of judgements which are against the Revenue, the substantial question of law (1) would not arise at all for consideration. 7. Similar view has been taken by the Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Surya Merchands Ltd. 387 ITR 105 and the Hon ble High Court of Uttrakhand in the case of CIT Vs. Sanjay Kumar Bansal 35 taxmann.com 514, and Honb ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. ACE Multi Taxes Systems Pvt. Ltd. 317 ITR 207. The ratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
