2001 (12) TMI 50 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether section 32AB(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is mandatory or directory.
2. Whether delayed filing of the audit report would disentitle an assessee from claiming the benefit of deduction u/s 32AB(1).

Summary:

Issue 1: Whether section 32AB(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is mandatory or directory.

The Full Bench examined whether the requirement to file the audit report along with the return u/s 32AB(5) is mandatory or directory. It was argued by the Revenue that the use of "shall not be admissible" indicates a mandatory requirement, similar to section 80J(6A) which was held mandatory in CIT v. Jaideep Industries [1989] 180 ITR 81 (P & H). Conversely, the assessee contended that the condition in section 32AB(5) is directory, supported by several judgments including CIT v. Gujarat Oil and Allied Industries [1993] 201 ITR 325 (Guj) and CIT v. A. N. Arunachalam [1994] 208 ITR 481 (Mad).

The court analyzed the language of sections 32AB(1) and 32AB(5) and concluded that while the conditions in section 32AB(1) are mandatory, the requirement of filing the audit report along with the return u/s 32AB(5) is directory. The court reasoned that the primary condition for deduction is the deposit or utilization of the amount, and the audit report can be filed before the finalization of the assessment.

Issue 2: Whether delayed filing of the audit report would disentitle an assessee from claiming the benefit of deduction u/s 32AB(1).

The court held that the delayed filing of the audit report does not disentitle the assessee from claiming the deduction u/s 32AB(1). The court emphasized that the Assessing Officer can accept the audit report even if it is not filed with the return, provided it is submitted before the assessment is finalized. This interpretation aligns with the principles of statutory construction and avoids absurd results.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that section 32AB(5) is directory, not mandatory, and the Assessing Officer has the discretion to entertain the audit report even if filed late. The court endorsed the views of the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Gujarat Oil and Allied Industries [1993] 201 ITR 325 and the Madras High Court in CIT v. A. N. Arunachalam [1994] 208 ITR 481, and disagreed with the contrary view in CIT v. Jaideep Industries [1989] 180 ITR 81 (P & H). The appeal was directed to be listed before the Division Bench for disposal in accordance with the law.