1995 (3) TMI 138 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Filing of Form 10CCAC along with the return.
2. Refusal to rectify income in the intimation slip based on subsequently filed Form 10CCAC.
3. Charging of interest under section 234B.
4. Charging additional tax under section 143(1A).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Filing of Form 10CCAC along with the return:
The assessee filed the return of income on 25-10-89, declaring a total income of Rs. 87,356. The assessment was completed under section 143(1)(a), and an intimation was issued on 8-8-90 on an adjusted total income of Rs. 5,88,706. The deduction under section 80HHC amounting to Rs. 5,01,350 was not allowed as the auditors' certificate in Form No. 10CCAC was not filed. The assessee filed two petitions under section 154, claiming that the certificate was filed along with the return but was omitted in the acknowledgment slip due to lack of space. The Assessing Officer declined to rectify the income, stating that the certificate was not filed with the return as evident from the acknowledgment receipt.

2. Refusal to rectify income in the intimation slip based on subsequently filed Form 10CCAC:
The CIT(A) confirmed the Assessing Officer's decision, stating that there was no evidence that Form 10CCAC was filed along with the return. The CIT(A) suggested that the appellant could resort to other provisions of the Act for removal of hardship, such as section 119(2)(b) or 264. The Tribunal noted that the computation of income and acknowledgment slip mentioned the deduction under section 80HHC, indicating that the certificate might have been filed. However, in the absence of direct documentary evidence, the presumption that the certificate was filed with the return could not be accepted.

3. Charging of interest under section 234B:
The assessee argued that interest under section 234B was not leviable as advance tax and TDS were paid, and the tax on the returned income was only Rs. 8,509. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) did not accept this contention. The Tribunal did not provide a detailed analysis on this issue, stating that it was consequential in nature.

4. Charging additional tax under section 143(1A):
The assessee also contested the charging of additional tax under section 143(1A). The Tribunal noted that this issue was also consequential in nature and did not provide a detailed analysis.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the revenue authorities were not justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee under section 80HHC. The orders of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) were vacated, and the Assessing Officer was directed to allow the deduction under section 80HHC. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the issues related to charging of interest under section 234B and additional tax under section 143(1A) were deemed consequential and general in nature.