9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (1) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t and certificate were before the Income-tax Officer when he made the assessment on November 26, 1977, he denied the relief on the ground that the return was not accompanied by the audit report as required by section 80J(6A) of the Act. This was confirmed on appeal. In the further appeal, the Appellate Tribunal came to the conclusion that the requirement of section 80J(6A) was only directory and as long as the audit report was available before the assessment was made, the assessee could not be denied the deduction. At the instance of the Revenue, the following questions have been referred : " 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen the report had been furnished along with the return. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for the assessee that the Gujarat High Court has taken a different view in CIT v. Gujarat Oil and Allied Industries [1993] 201 ITR 325 and even in respect of similar provisions of section 184(7), before it was amended to relieve its harshness, there was difference of opinion as to whether a return should be accompanied by the declaration for getting registration, as between the Madras High Court in Halima Fancy Stores v. CIT [1976] 104 ITR 190 and the Allahabad High Court in Addl. CIT v. Murlidhar Mathura Prasad [1979] 118 ITR 392. It was pointed out that the Patna High Court also has taken a similar view in CIT v. Sitaram Bh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reparation of the audit report was beyond the control of the assessee and hence the assessee could justifiably delay the filing of the return itself so that it is accompanied by the audit report. In such an event, the Income-tax Officer could not deny the deduction since the purpose of the section would have been fulfilled even though the return itself was filed beyond the prescribed time. For instance, in the present case, if the assessee had filed the return with the audit report on October 21, 1977, the relief could not have been denied whereas it is sought to be denied only because he filed the return on June 29, 1977, and filed the audit report later on October 21, 1977, when it was made available. The section cannot also be construed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
