TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (6) TMI 926
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee-appellant when its appeal was called out for hearing, despite service of notice of hearing through RPAD. Even no adjournment motion stands moved by the assessee. In fact, we observe non-representation by and on behalf of the assessee throughout the course of its appeal before the Tribunal. Even no authority/power of attorney is on record. Under the circumstances, it was only considered fit and proper to proceed with the hearing, and decide the appeal after hearing the party before us after considering the material on record. 3. The assessee is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of processing of marbles. For the A.Y. 2006-07, it filed its return of income on 30.1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the Appellant's accounts were audited by an Accountant as prescribed u/s. 288(2) and as per the requirement of Sec. 80IA(7). c) Without prejudice to above, removing technical deficiency whether at assessment stage or at remand stage, the Assessing Officer ought to have appreciated the merits which was also ignored by the CIT(A). d) Without prejudice to above, the ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the fact that the requirement of filing Audit Report along with Return is not mandatory and since not filing Audit Report is a curable defect, the ld. CIT(A) is not justified to disallows the claim. 2. LEVY OF PENAL INTEREST The Appellant, on merits, denies its liability to penal interest.' 3. We have heard the party before us, a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t is subject, i.e., upon either party taking it before a higher appellate forum, as has been. Even if the ld. CIT(A) were to merely follow his order/s for the earlier years, which are not on record, the relevant part/s thereof ought to have been reproduced by him, so as to convey the said reasons, which would then by incorporation form the reasons informing his order or decision, besides constituting a self-contained order, while in the present case it does not state, even broadly, the basis for the confirmation of the disallowance, i.e., for the earlier years. Again, it would also enable the reader to see if the facts and circumstances of the instant case are or are not, identical or similar, as the case may be, for the said decision to ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the disallowance of deduction u/s.80-IB. Its examination, however and, rather, therefore, could not be circumvented. As such, its' belated filing apart, which the A.O. objects for admission in-as-much as the same was not filed despite adequate opportunity during the assessment proceedings, the same was required to be examined by him, i.e., on merits, and which he did not. His failure to do so would not automatically imply the said report as having been examined by him as to its correctness. The ld. CIT(A), accordingly, ought to have caused the necessary verification of the said audit report by the assessing authority. Rather, r. 46A precludes the placing of reliance by the first appellate authority on any additional evidence which ha....