9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 252X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s 80IB, has been filed subsequently before the AO or even at the appellate stage, it should be taken into cognizance for examining the allowability of claim for deduction - neither the AO nor the Commissioner (Appeals) in the proceedings, has taken cognizance of the audit report filed before the AO in the rectification proceedings, thus, the matter is liable to be remitted back to the AO for the examination that if the revised audit report has been filed before the AO in pursuance of notice u/s 154, then it should be taken into cognizance for examining the allowability of the claim u/s 80IB – Decided partly in favour of Assessee. - ITA No. 2624/Mum./2012 - - - Dated:- 13-6-2014 - Shri D. Karunakara Rao And Shri Amit Shukla,JJ. For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... BBB. The Assessing Officer allowed the deduction as claimed by the assessee, vide order dated 28th December 2006, passed under section 143(3). Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 154, highlighting the following nature of mistakes which was proposed to be rectified. NATURE OF MISTAKE PROPOSED TO BE RECTIFIED It is seen that Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides that the deduction u/s 80IA will not be admissible unless the accounts of the undertaking for the relevant previous year relevant to the assessment year for which the deduction is claimed have been audited by an accountant and the assessee furnishes, along with his return of income, the report of such audit in the prescribed form duly si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t for claiming deduction under section 80IB was not filed in the prescribed form and did not contain the crucial details which were required for the purpose of allowing the claim and, therefore, the deduction could not have been allowed. Accordingly, the learned Commissioner directed the Assessing Officer to re compute the total income without allowing the deduction under section 80IB. The assessee, against the said order passed by the learned Commissioner, preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, wherein the Tribunal confirmed the said order of the learned Commissioner vide order dated 28th August 2009. 5. In the second round of proceedings, in pursuance of the directions of the learned Commissioner, the Assessing Officer disallowed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i) CIT v/s Medicaps Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 554 (MP); iii) CIT v/s G. Krishnan Nair [2003] 259 ITR 727 (Ker); iv) Murali Export House v/s CIT[1999] 238 ITR 257 (Cal); v) CIT v/s Pandian Hotels Ltd. [2006] 281 ITR 446 (Mad); vi) CIT v/s Punjab Financial Corpn. [2002] 254 ITR 16 (P H); vii) CIT v/s Gupta Fabs [2005] 274 ITR 620 (P H); viii) CIT v/s Print Systems Prints [2006] 285 ITR 260 (Mad); ix) CIT v/s Manharlal Bhardwaj [2007] 164 Taxman 59 (P H); x) CIT v/s Shivanand Electronics [1994] 209 ITR 63 (Born); xi) Eagle Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. v/s ITO [2011] 8 ITR (Trib) 211 (Ahd) and xii) CIT v/s Medicaps Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 554, 557 (M.P) Lastly, he submitted that once in the earlier years, the assessee s c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th December 2006, allowed the assessee s claim based on old format audit report. Subsequently, he noticed that the audit report which was furnished, was not in the prescribed form, he accordingly, issued a notice under section 154 / 155 dated 28th September 2007. The contents of the said notice have already been reproduced in the foregoing paragraph. In response to the same, the assessee not only furnished the revised audit report dated 6th October 2007, which was in the new form prescribed under rule 18BBB but also filed detailed explanation, as to why such an audit report should be admitted for allowing claim at this stage. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer accepted the same and no changes were made in the claim for deduction under sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
