9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 2036 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s 80IC - assessee has filed his return of income late by 18 days and form No. 10 CCB was not furnished - HELD THAT - The delay in filing of the return of income was conned on by the Central board of direct taxes by order dated 29/03/2017 and therefore now the assessee is eligible for deduction under section 80 IC of the income tax act. Similar issue was considered by the Hon ble Kolkata high court in case of CIT Vs. Magnum Exports Private Limited 2003 (4) TMI 78 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT . We direct the AO to consider form No. 10 CCB dated 25/09/2012 for the purpose of the claim of the assessee u/s 80IC of the income tax act. Therefore we set aside the whole issue back to the file of AO. AO is directed to examine the claim of the assessee afresh and then decide issue on the merit considering the above form. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing the return of income and its impact on claiming deduction under section 80IC of the Income Tax Act. 2. Submission of audit report in Form No. 10 CCB after the completion of assessment and its procedural implications. 3. The role of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) in condoning the delay in filing the return. 4. Interpretation of mandatory versus directory provisions regarding the filing of audit reports. Detailed Analysis: 1. Delay in Filing the Return of Income: The primary issue in this case was the delay in filing the return of income by the assessee, which was filed 18 days late. This delay initially led to the denial of the deduction claimed under section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, amounting to Rs. 5,024,393. The assessee's return was filed beyond the time limit specified under section 139(1), leading to an assessment under section 144, which determined a higher total income. The assessee's appeal was based on the contention that the delay had been condoned by the CBDT as per their order dated 29/03/2017, thus making the return eligible for consideration under the law for granting the deduction. 2. Submission of Audit Report in Form No. 10 CCB: The key procedural issue was the submission of the audit report in Form No. 10 CCB after the assessment was completed. The assessee argued that the submission of this form is a procedural requirement and that the appeal process is a continuation of the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the audit report submitted before the tribunal should be considered for the claim. The department contended that without the audit report being submitted before the assessing officer, no deduction could be allowed. 3. Role of CBDT in Condoning Delay: The CBDT's role was crucial as it had the authority to condone the delay in filing the return. The assessee's petition for condonation was pending during the CIT(A)'s decision, but it was later condoned by the CBDT. This condonation was pivotal as it allowed the return to be treated as filed within the stipulated time, thereby enabling the consideration of the deduction claim under section 80IC. 4. Interpretation of Mandatory vs. Directory Provisions: The tribunal examined various judicial precedents regarding whether the requirement to file the audit report along with the return is mandatory or directory. Citing the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in CIT Vs. Magnum Exports Private Limited, it was noted that while filing the audit report is mandatory for claiming deductions, the timing of its submission is procedural and thus directory. The tribunal emphasized that the assessment is not final until completed by the tribunal, allowing for procedural compliance at the appellate stage. Conclusion: The tribunal, following the precedent set by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, directed the assessing officer to consider the audit report submitted by the assessee for the deduction claim under section 80IC. The matter was remitted back to the assessing officer to examine the claim afresh, considering the audit report. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was allowed, with directions for a fresh assessment. The judgment underscores the distinction between mandatory requirements for claiming deductions and procedural aspects of compliance, which can be addressed during the appellate process.
|
