AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 316
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....addition of Rs. 78,49,967/- by disallowing deduction claimed u/s 80 IA of the I.T. Act, 1961 without appreciating the facts of the case in right perspective and also ignoring the explanation offered by the assessee during the course of assessment as well as appellate proceedings. As per instructions of the Board and in view of various judicial pronouncements on the subject, the claim of such deduction should not be disallowed for 'bona-fide' and 'procedural lapse'. Thus the disallowance so made is bad in law and the addition made and confirmed on this account deserves to be deleted summarily. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Authorities below have legally and factually erred in making/sustaining following addition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rn of income was discharged by the assessee within the stipulated time period. The assessee further contended that filing of audit report is a procedural aspect and not a fundamental legal obligation. Therefore, the assessee subsequently filed the audit report in satisfaction of the provisions of section 80IA(7) of the Act. The assessee relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dr. L.M. Singhvi, 289 ITR 425 (Raj.). The ld. CIT (A) was not convinced with the contention of the assessee and also distinguished the decision relied upon by the assessee on the ground that for the assessment year under consideration e-filing of audit report is mandatory and, therefore, non-compliance of the necessary condi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng with the return of income and non compliance of the said condition disentitle the assessee for the deduction under section 80IA of the Act. 4. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. This is not the first year of claim of deduction under section 80IB and, therefore, it is not the case of the A.O. that the assessee's undertaking is not eligible for deduction under section 80IB. However, only for want of filing of form no. 10CCB along with the return of income and through e-filing, the AO has denied the claim of deduction under section 80IA. The assessee subsequently filed the form no. 10CCB during the assessment proceedings and also explained the reasons for not e-filing the form 10CCB along w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... AIR 1992 SC 152. The contention was raised before the Supreme Court that a condition statutorily provided for availing a benefit must be held substantive in all cases and non-compliance of statutory condition must result in forfeiture of exemption. The Court repelled this contention and explained : ". . .There is a fallacy in the emphasis of this argument. The consequence which Shri Narasimha Murthy suggests should flow from the non-compliance would, indeed, be the result if the condition was a substantive one and one fundamental to the policy underlying the exemption. Its stringency and mandatory nature must be justified by the purpose intended to be served. The mere fact that it is statutory does not matter one way or the other. There ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plication, which had only to be accompanied by the fee would be considered validly filed on the date on which it was made only if proper fee had been tendered with it when it was filed. A right and reasonable procedure looks to substance rather than form of a transaction in order to determine its nature. The statute and the rules made thereunder would have said so if the application itself was to be deemed to be void ab initio for non- compliance with a particular technical requirement if that was the intention behind them." 15. In coming to this conclusion, the Court said :- ". . .the use of word 'shall' in imposing a duty is not conclusive on the question whether the duty imposed is mandatory or directory. Moreover, that question was ....