Gujarat High Court
Pr.Commissioner Of Income ... vs Gandhinagar Telerads....Opponent(S) on 1 February, 2016
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Mohinder Pal
O/TAXAP/58/2016 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX APPEAL NO. 58 of 2016
==========================================================
PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX-GANDHINAGAR....Appellant(s)
Versus
GANDHINAGAR TELERADS....Opponent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SUDHIR M MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL
Date : 01/02/2016
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1. Revenue is in appeal against the judgement of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, raising the following question for our consideration :
"Whether the report in Form No.56F not filed with return and also not during the course of assessment proceedings can be said be valid compliance for claiming of deduction u/s.10A?"
2. Issue pertains to deduction under section 10A of the Income Tax Act ("the Act" for short) claimed by the assessee. However, before the Assessing Officer though the assessee had filed its audit return in form No.3CB and 3CD as required under section 44AB of the Act, but had not filed audit report in Form No.56F as required under section 10A read with Section 16D of the Income Tax Rules. On such basis, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of deduction. CIT(Appeals) as well as the Tribunal reversed Page 1 of 3 HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Wed Feb 03 02:02:42 IST 2016 O/TAXAP/58/2016 ORDER such decision and granted the claim. In particular, the Tribunal noted the statutory language contained in subsection(5) of section 10A of the Act with subsection (4) of section 80HHC of the Act which also insists on the assessee furnishing the report of the accountant for claim of deduction under section 80HHC of the Act. The Tribunal referred to the decisions of this Court, particularly in case of Zenith Processing Mills v. CIT reported in 219 ITR 721 to come to the conclusion that when the assessee had eventually filed such returns, though at the appellate stage, the same must be seen as sufficient compliance. In our opinion, the Tribunal committed no error. As noted, the Revenue does not have any grievance or objection regarding the validity of the claim of assessee, except that the procedural requirement of filing of audition report in the prescribed format was not done. Undisputedly facts are that audit report was furnished even along with the return of the income, but in form No.3CB and 3CD and not in the prescribed format. This error was corrected before the appellate authority. No question of law arises.
3. Counsel for the Revenue however, relied on the decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of Panasonic Energy India Co. Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2014) 367 ITR 245(Guj.), wherein in context of claim under section 80IB of the Act, the Court refused to entertain the request of the assessee to submit the report in the prescribed format for the first time before the High Court. Facts in the present case are substantially different.
4. In the result, tax appeal is dismissed.
(AKIL KURESHI, J.)
Page 2 of 3
HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Wed Feb 03 02:02:42 IST 2016
O/TAXAP/58/2016 ORDER
(MOHINDER PAL, J.)
raghu
Page 3 of 3
HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Wed Feb 03 02:02:42 IST 2016