TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 1660
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED FORM 10CCB ALONG WITH THE RETURN 2. THE LD. AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN IGNORING FORM 10CCB FILED WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED BY HIMSELF IN INTIMATION U/S 143(l)(a). HE WAS ALSO NOT JUSTIFIED IN NON-COMMUNICATION OF REASON/GROUNDS OF IGNOR1NG/REJECT1NG FORM 10CCB 3. THE LD. AO HAS ERRED TO IGNORE FORM 10CCB FILED BELATEDLY BUT BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(1) 4. THE LD. AO HAS TAKEN A VERY NARROW VIEW OF THE WORDS 'FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN'USED IN THE 5. THE LD. AO HAS NOT INVOKED SECTION 139(9), THEREBY 6 THE LD. CIT(A) WAS WRONG IN HOLDING THAT AFTER INTRODUCTION OF THE ELECTRONIC FILING SCHEME, THERE WAS NO DEBATE AVAILABLE THAT EVEN IF THE AUDIT REPORT WAS FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSMEN....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ance of the assessee is that, the said communication dated 23/07/2018, was received by post on 21/08/2018, but was never issued through email or any other mode of service. However, the assessee corrected the error by submitting the audit report in Form 10CCB on 15th September, 2018, which is within 30 days from receipt of communication by post. 5.1 Thereafter, the said return was processed (assessed) u/s 143(1) of the Act 61, by CPC, Bangalore, on 4th October, 2018, that is after the date of filing the report in Form 10CCB. 6. In other words the report in Form 10CCB containing all particulars regarding the claim of deduction u/s 80IB of the Act 61, was before the AO, at the time of assessment, and the same should have been considered, for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bmission the relevant portion is reproduced for ready reference: "3). The Ld. AO as well as worthy CIT(A) have only relied on the fact that audit report was not filed along with the return. That the words 'along with' merely means that the audit report should be furnished so that it is available to AO before completion of assessment. Furnishing it late (but before the assessment is made) doesn't make the report invalid so as to deny the deduction u/s 80IB. This has been held in many judgments like CIT v. Trehan enterprises (2000) 108 Taxman 189 (J&K) & also in Panama Chemical works (2000) 245 ITR 684 (MP) besides in Amber Sales Mfg. Corp v ITO (1984) 19 TTJ9Chd.) 177. In the instant case, since Form 10CCB was filed much be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y been decided in favour of the assessee and held by various coordinate benches of the tribunal that the submission of Form 10CCB is directory and not mandatory, and compliance of the provisions will suffice, if the auditor's report in Form 10CCB, is filed before completion of assessment, in respect of deductions claimed under section 80IB. 10.2 The coordinate bench of Delhi ITAT in the case of Sanjay Kukreja, ITA 652/ Delhi / 2023 order dated 30th January, 2024 held as follows (relevant portion reproduced) We find that similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. AKS Alloys Pvt. Ltd. (supra), wherein it has been held as under: "5. In so far as it relates to the substantial question of law....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....09 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. Maholaxmi Rice Factory [2007] 294 ITR 631/ 1.63 Taxman 565 (Punj. & Har). 7. The Calcutta High Court in the case in the CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 503/r20031 126 Taxman 435 (Cal.) has also concurred with the said view which was followed by the Tribunal in this case. 8. Mr. T. Ravikumar, the learned counsel for the appellant is not able to produce any other judgement contrary to the above said views consistently taken. 9. In the light of the above, by virtue of hierarchy of judgements which are against the Revenue, the substantial question of law (1)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....TR 456 and held that a mere procedural irregularity is not fatal to claim deduction under Section 80-IC of the Act. In the case of M/s. Winro Commercial (India) Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 and Anr., ITAT 237 of 2022, dated 22nd November, 2022, this Court had considered the similar issue where the assessee failed to attach the audit report of claim deduction along with the Return of income. That being only a procedural lapse, the Court held that the assessee cannot be non-suited on the said ground. The decision of the High Court of Delhi in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Centimeter Electricals Private Limited, 2009 178, taxmann.com, 422 (Delhi) and the decision of this Court in the case of Murali Export....