TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (4) TMI 127
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the basis of Calcutta High Court decision in Century Enka Ltd., vs. ITO & Ors. (1976 CTR (Cal) 433 : (1977) 107 ITR 909 (Cal) and Andhra Pradesh High Court decision in CIT vs. Warner Hindustan Ltd., (1978) CTR (APP) 228 : (1979) 117 ITR 68 (APP). For assessment year 1981-82 the relief claimed was Rs. 2,62,530. However, in view of the amendment and insertion of sub-s. (1A) to s. 80J by Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980, the correct relief was worked out by the ITO at Rs. 77,497. Having worked the correct relief he denied the relief on the ground that the assessee did not file the auditor's report in Form No. 10D as prescribed under r. 18C of the IT Rules r/w s. 80J (6A) of the IT Act. It is not as if the audit reports were not prepared. Inter alia,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8 TTJ (Chd) 553 : (1983) 5 ITD 238 (Chd). The only intendment of the certificate of auditors was that it should point out that the books of accounts were maintained in the proper manner and that the accounts gave a true and fair view of the affairs of the industrial undertaking for the relevant accounting year, and there was no necessity for the audit report to be prepared at any particular point of time. Therefore, he held ultimately that the assessee is entitled to s. 80J relief as computed correctly by the ITO. Aggrieved against the impugned order of the ld., CIT(A) the present second appeal is filed by the Revenue and thus the matter stands for our consideration. 4. It is argued by the ld., Departmental Representative that there is a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be deemed to have been filed under s. 139(4a) which came into the statues books effect from 1st April, 1973 and nothing prevented to treat the revised return under s. 139(1). In fact, this decision is more helpful to the assessee than to the department's contention. 6. In Dilsukhrai Ranglal vs. CIT (1976) 102 ITR 640 (Ori) the Orissa High Court considered whether a firm is entitled to continuation of registration under s. 184(7) if a mere declaration that there is no change in the constitution of the firm was filed without the said declaration being accompanied by a return. The Orissa High Court held that in such a case and under those circumstances the earlier registration will continue to have effect for the subsequent year. Halima....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urn of income shall be regarded as defective unless all the following conditions are fulfilled, namely: (e) where the accounts of the assessee have been audited, the return is accompanied by copies of the audited profit and loss account, balance sheet and the auditor's report and where an audit of cost accounts of the assessee has been conducted under s. 233B of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), also the report under that section: therefore, the non-accompanying of the audit report along with return is an instance which should be considered as defective return. As already stated s. 139(9) was inserted w.e.f. 1st Sept., 1980 whereas the Madras High Court decision in 1976 CTR (Mad) 295 : (1976) 104 ITR 190 (Mad) was rendered on 8th July....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee's claim for deduction. The Tribunal ultimately held that the requirement that the audit report should accompany the return is directory and cannot totally deprive the assessee of relief if it is otherwise admissible. The AAC's order that the mistake was not capable of rectification cannot be accepted and since the audit report was in order, the assessee would be entitled to deduction. Another direct decision is also cited both before the lower authority and before us and that is Chandigarh Bench decision in Mahalaxmi Rice Factory vs. ITO (1984) 18 TTJ (Chd) 553 : (1983) 5 ITD 238 (Chd). The facts of that case are quite identical with facts on hand. There also the assessee firm's claim for deduction under s. 80J was refused by the ITO ....