TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 2227
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nciple violation of Principles of Natural Justice. 3. The Ln AO, CPC and CIT(A) have erred in law and facts by denying the deduction 80IAC of the Act claimed by the Appellant, for failure to furnish the Audit report in form 10CCB within the prescribed due date. 4. The Ln AO, CPC and CIT(A) has erred in law and facts by holding that the time limit for filing the Audit report in form 10CCB along with there turn of Income was mandatory in nature on the facts and circumstances of the Case. 5. For that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the requirement to file Audit Report in Form No. 10CCB for claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act is only directory and not mandatory. 6 For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have noted that the appellant had fled the Audit Report in Form No. 10CCB on 21.07.2022, well before 143(1) order dated 21.12.2022. 7. For that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to note that where Audit Report in Form No. 100CB is filed before the assessment is completed, the said Form would be tenable, enabling deduction u/s 80IAC of the Act. 8. For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the Audit Report in Form No.10CCB for cl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CCB audit report before filing the return of income was due to absence of staff at the office on account of Covid-19 pandemic. On receipt of the proposed adjustment u/s.143(1)(a) of the Act, the assessee took steps to file the audit report in Form 10CCB on 21.07.2022. Therefore, the assessee had filed the required audit report in Form 10CCB before completing the processing by the CPC and issue of intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act. Hence the Ld.AR stated that before concluding the assessment required audit report was filed and available before the CPC. In support of his arguments, the Ld.AR relied on the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Ramani Realtors (P) Ltd., reported in 54 taxamann.com 321, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has observed in para 5 as below:- "5. In yet another decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Print Systems & Products, (2006) 285 ITR 260 (Mad.), this Court held that filing of audit report along with the return, as contemplated under Section 32AB(5) of the Income Tax Act, is only directory and not mandatory. The relevant portion of the said decision reads as under: "With regard to the interpretation of section....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....duction to the assessee in terms of section 32AB(1). The Full Bench, while so holding that the filing of the audit report is not mandatory, has observed that the question as to whether a statute is mandatory or directory depends upon the intent of the Legislature and not upon the language in which the intent is clothed. The meaning and intention of the Legislature must govern not only from the phraseology of the provision, but also by considering its nature, its design and the consequences, which should follow from construing it one way or the other ; (iii) the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana Court in Punjab Financial Corporations case [2002] 254 ITR 6 referred to supra, has thus arrived at the conclusion that filing of audit report is directory, but not mandatory, based on the rule of interpretation, with reference to the fiscal statute in the matter of imposing penalty, formulated by the apex court, in State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava, AIR 1957 SC 912, wherein it has been held as under (page 13): 'All the parts of a statute or section must be construed together and every clause of a section should be construed with reference to the context and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the Hon'ble Madras High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. AKS Alloys (P) Ltd., reported in 18 taxmann.com 25, wherein it is held as under:- "5. In so far as it relates to the substantial question of law (1) is concerned, namely, whether the filing of audit report in Form 10CCB is mandatory, it is well settled by a number of judicial precedents that before the assessment is completed, the declaration could be filed. In fact, the said issue came to be decided by the Karnataka High Court in the case in THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER vs. ACE MULTITAXES SYSTEMS (P) LTD. (2009) 317 ITR 207(Karnataka), wherein it was held that when a relief is sought for under Section 80IB of the Act, there is no obligation on the part of the assessee to file return accompanied by the audit report, thereby, holding that the same is not mandatory. Therefore, it is clear that before the assessment is completed if such report is filed, no fault could be found against the assessee. That was also the view of the Delhi High Court in the case in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. CONTIMETERS ELECTRICALS (P) LTD -(2009) 317 ITR 249(Delhi), wherein the Delhi High Court, by following the judge....