2009 (1) TMI 872 - HC - Income Tax

Appeal Dismissed Due to Form Non-Submission

The Bombay HC dismissed the appeal regarding non-submission of Form No.10-CCAC with the original return of income, upholding the decision of the CIT ... Procedural defect - belated submission of prescribed form - allowability of claim despite procedural lapse - power of Assessing Officer to disallow claim on procedural groundsProcedural defect - belated submission of prescribed form - allowability of claim despite procedural lapse - Whether the Assessing Officer was justified in negating the assessee's claim on the ground that Form No.10-CCAC was not filed with the original return when the form was subsequently submitted. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal found that the omission to file Form No.10-CCAC with the original return was a purely procedural defect and, since the form was subsequently submitted, the Assessing Officer was not justified in denying the assessee's claim on that ground. The Commissioner (Appeal) had allowed the assessee's appeal, a view which was confirmed by the ITAT. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal and the Commissioner (Appeal), holding that the procedural lapse did not warrant negation of the claim where the required form had been furnished later.The Assessing Officer was not justified in negating the claim on the ground of initial non-submission of Form No.10-CCAC; the procedural lapse was cured by subsequent submission and the authorities below were correct in allowing the claim.Final Conclusion: The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, holding that the question of law as framed did not arise and concurring with the Tribunal and Commissioner (Appeal) that the belated submission of Form No.10-CCAC was a procedural defect which did not justify denial of the assessee's claim. The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal regarding non-submission of Form No.10-CCAC with the original return of income, stating that it was a procedural issue and the claim of the assessee should not have been negated. The CIT (Appeal) had allowed the appeal, which was confirmed by ITAT. The court upheld this decision, stating that the view taken was correct.