2016 (9) TMI 1036 - HC - Income Tax

Tribunal Error: Deduction Disallowed under Section 80HHC

Commissioner of Income Tax, Bikaner Versus Kamaljeet Singh Ahluwalia

Commissioner of Income Tax, Bikaner Versus Kamaljeet Singh Ahluwalia - TMI Issues Involved:1. Entitlement to claim deduction under Section 80HHC.2. Compliance with the mandatory requirement of Section 80HHC(4) for claiming the deduction.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Entitlement to Claim Deduction under Section 80HHC:The core issue was whether the assessee was entitled to claim a deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act. The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 1,07,33,971/- under Section 80HHC for the assessment year 1995-96. However, the Assessing Officer (AO) rejected this claim during the processing under Section 143(1)(a) due to the absence of the required certificate from a Chartered Accountant (CA).The assessee moved an application under Section 154 for rectification, asserting that the requisite certificate was indeed attached with the return of income. The AO, however, maintained that no such certificate was enclosed, a fact supported by the absence of any mention in Part-V of the return of income. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] also upheld this view, noting that the audit report provided by Anil Nagori and Associates, CA, calculated the allowable deduction at only Rs. 6,00,410/-. The CIT(A) observed that the return of income was filled with cuttings and overwritings, and no audit report claiming the higher deduction was found.The Tribunal, however, allowed the assessee's claim, stating that the deduction was allowable based on the computation of income, despite the absence of a specific audit report for the higher amount.2. Compliance with the Mandatory Requirement of Section 80HHC(4):Section 80HHC(4) mandates that to claim a deduction under sub-section (1), the assessee must furnish a report from a Chartered Accountant, certifying that the deduction has been correctly claimed. This report must be attached to the return of income.The Tribunal's decision was challenged on the grounds that the audit report specifying the deduction amount was not annexed with the return of income. The Tribunal's order was criticized for being cursory and not addressing the absence of the audit report for the claimed higher deduction. The Tribunal's reliance on the computation of income alone was deemed insufficient, as the statutory requirement under Section 80HHC(4) was not met.The High Court examined the orders of the AO, CIT(A), and the Tribunal. It was found that there was no mention of an audit report supporting the higher deduction claim of Rs. 1,07,33,971/-. The CIT(A) and AO had consistently noted that the only audit report available was for Rs. 6,00,410/-. The High Court emphasized that the requirement to furnish an audit report is mandatory and procedural compliance is necessary to substantiate the deduction claim.Conclusion:The High Court concluded that the Tribunal erred in allowing the deduction of Rs. 1,07,33,971/- without the requisite audit report. The finding of the Tribunal was deemed perverse and unsustainable. Both substantial questions of law were answered against the assessee and in favor of the Revenue, resulting in the appeal being allowed.