2019 (3) TMI 2024

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....65,811/-. 3. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. The facts in brief are that the assessee company is engaged in real estate business. Return of income for the year under consideration was filed on 30/07/2013 declaring total income at Rs. NIL after claiming deduction U/s 80IB of Rs. 13,65,811/-. In the course of assessment U/s 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer declined assessee's claim U/s 80IB of the Act by alleging that the assessee has failed to file the audit report in Form No. 10CCB online as required in Rule 12(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. By the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance and the assessee is in further appeal before the ITAT. 4. I have considered rival contentions and ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....athon India Ltd. in ITA No. 287/JP/2018 order dated 27/06/2018 wherein the Tribunal has observed as under: "5. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant materials on record. The AO has not disputed the eligibility of the assessee for deduction U/s 80IE of the Act being nature of business and undertaking of the assessee engaged in the manufacturing of goods or articles. Only reasons for disallowance of claim of deduction U/s 80IE of the Act by the AO is not filing of the audit report in form No. 10CCB along with the return of income. It is also not in disputed that the assessee filed the requisite tax audit report in Form No. 10CCB during the course of assessment proceedings and before the assessment order was....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rt along with the return was not mandatory but directory and that if the audit report was filed at any time before the framing of the assessment, the requirement of the provisions of the Act should be held to have been met. 6. That is also the consistent view of the other High Courts, including the High Court of Bombay in CIT v. Shivanand Electronics [1994] 209 ITR 63/ 75 Taxman 93(Bom.), apart from Gujarat High Court in Zenith Processing Mills v. CIT [1996] 219 ITR 721(Guj.) and Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Mahalaxmi Rice Factory [2007] 294 ITR 631/ 163 Taxman 565(Punj. & Har). 7. The Calcutta High Court in the case in the CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 503/[2003] 126 Taxman 435(Cal.) has also....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....missed. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. However, there is no order as to costs." The order of Hon'ble Madras High Court has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. G.M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd.(supra). Accordingly, in view of the various binding precedent as relied upon by the ld. CIT(A) while allowing the claim of the assessee, we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A). Hence, we uphold the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A)." 6. In view of above judicial pronouncements, there is no reason to out rightly decline the claim of deduction U/s 80IB of the Act only on the plea of the report not filed electronically and when the report was duly submitted before ....