9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 639X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turn of income on 15/02/2022, declaring total income of Rs. 20,17,63,290/-. The appellant company in its return of income claimed deduction u/s 80IA of the I.T. Act, 1961 for the profits earned by it out of power generation from its solar power plant and filed the audit report in Form-10CCB as required under section 80IA of the Act,. It has also claimed deduction u/s 80-IAB of the I.T. Act, 1961 for the profits earned by it out of the business of developer of special economic zone. However, it did not file the audit report in Form-10CCB as required u/s 80IAB of the Act. Further, the appellant has filed 2nd audit report in Form-10CCB for claiming deduction u/s 80IAB of the Act, on 25/06/2022. The Assessing Officer, CPC processed the return o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Form-10CCB on 25/06/2022 which was available before the Assessing Officer when he passed order u/s 143(1) of the Act. Since filing of the audit report is directory in nature but not mandatory, the Assessing Officer should have considered the audit report filed by the assessee even though beyond the due date specified under the Act, but before the Assessing Officer passed assessment order u/s 143(1) of the Act,. Therefore, he submitted that the additions made by the Assessing Officer towards disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80IAB should be deleted. 4. The learned DR, on the other hand, supporting the order of the learned CIT (A) submitted that the filing of separate audit report for deduction claimed u/s 80IA and 80IAB is mandatory. F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2/06/2022. The appellant further took support from certain judicial precedents including the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Arunachalam reported in (1994) 208 ITR 481 and the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd (2009) 317 ITR 249. 6. We find that the Hon'ble Madras High Court held that filing of audit report is directory in nature and if such audit report is filed on or before the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order u/s 143(1) or u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961, then the Assessing Officer should consider the audit report for the purpose of allowing the benefit of deduction under the provisions of the Act. In the present case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as held that filing of audit report is directory in nature but not mandatory and further if such audit report is filed on or before the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order, then the same needs to be considered for allowing deduction or exemption under the provisions of the Act. Since, the appellant has filed the audit report in Form 10CCB before the Assessing Officer passed order u/s 143(1) of the Act, in our considered view, the claim by the assessee u/s 80IAB of the Act needs to be allowed. Thus, we set aside the order of the learned CIT (A) and direct the Assessing Officer to allow deduction claimed u/s 80IAB of the Act. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 12th Nove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
