9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eferred in sub-section (5) to section 10A of the Act and the definition of which as provided in Explanation below to sub-section (2) of section 288 of the Act is required. It is amply clear that a Chartered Accountant falling under the definition to clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 is required to certify the correct claim under the provisions of section 10A of the Act. Assessee could not provide any material supporting the order of the ld. CIT(A) showing that Deloitte Haskins and Sells is an Accountant as referred in sub-section 5 of section 10A of the Act. Thus, we hold the view of the AO is correct in holding the Form 56F is defective and the assessee is not entitled for deduction under section 10A - Decided against assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stration. According to the Assessing Officer, the date of commencement of initial registration stated to be January, 2000 and held the same also defective for not having certified by the Chartered Accountant as required by the Act. In view of the same, the deduction claimed under section 10A of the Act was rejected. The ld. CIT(A) observed that even though no signature of C.A., the same is signed by Deloitte Haskins and Sells, which is a multi-national Chartered Accountant firm and held the Form 56F is valid. The ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing officer to allow deduction under section 10A by holding that the Assessing Officer is quite erroneous in not allowing the benefits of section 10A of the Act merely because the prescribed audit report in Form 56F was defective and the same cannot be rejected on merely technical ground. 6. The ld. DR Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT, filed summary of submissions in the present case. He vehemently argued thast the ld. CIT(A) was in error in concluding that non furnishing of Form 56F as mandated under the Act is only a technical requirement and the act of the assessee in not furnishing the report in effect defeat the requirement of law. He drew our ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT v. Wipro Ltd. (supra) upheld the order of the ld. CIT(A) in denying deduction under section 10AA of the Act. 9. We note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT v. Wipro Ltd. (supra) held the filing of Form 56F is mandatory, which must be furnished before the due date of filing of return of income under section 139(1) of the Act with reference to the deduction under section 10B of the Act. We find that the provision under section 10B of the Act is a special provision in respect of newly established 100% export oriented undertaking. The Tribunal, in the case of Mahendra Kumar Damani v. ADIT (supra) with reference to the deduction under section 10AA of the Act, held the assessee is not entitled to claim deduction under section 10AA of the Act for not filing report of the Accountant in prescribed format along with return of income under section 139(1) of the Act duly certifying the deduction has been correctly claimed in accordance with the provisions. We note that the provision under section 10AA of the Act is a special provision in respect of newly established units under Special Economic Zone. The Tribunal, in order to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of commencement of manufacture or production and the date of initial registration in FTZ/EPZ/SEZ were not furnished in Form 56F by the assessee. The Assessing Officer proposed to reject the said Form 56F, thereafter, a fresh addendum to the report was furnished by the assessee on 25.03.2013 and the Assessing Officer observed the same was not signed by a Chartered Accountant as mandated by the provisions of the Act, i.e., sub-section (5) to section 10A of the Act, held the report signed as "Deloitte Haskins and Sells" is not a valid verification of report in Form 56F and treated as defective. The ld. CIT(A) held the said Form 56F is valid as far as it was signed by "Deloitte Haskins and Sells", which is a multi-national Chartered Accountant firm. But, we find no such evidence brought on record for our examination in order to decide whether "Deloitte Haskins and Sells" is falling under the definition of "Accountant" as provided in Explanation below to sub-section (2) to section 288 of the Act. In such circumstances, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is not justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under section 10A of the Act. 12. We find the definition of an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
