Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Ace Multiaxes Systems Pvt Ltd on 5 January, 2009
Bench: Deepak Verma, K.Ramanna
Ix 'rm: men COURT or KAR!IA'l'AKA AT " % mrmn mm mm sm pm or 3 TI-IE Horram MR. JUSTICE figfirax V % mm aozrnnmwzg. Juswiéifz A""mx'V I.'I'.A. BETWEEN: 1.
The €ommiSsio"ne:;fcf«1_ngc3me¥Tax, ' Q11e§'n.s.Ré>'a3g3' ::;:,\ --» _3_A...I:.5..._....____.....G1*~3-°5~'#Ea-
2. The Assistant Ctizijxnissgiirzvzér of §noomé"T_-W9. V' . ' "
Circle - rm), -
{1._§_R. Building-,« Qfietfis Row' ..... A .. APPELLAN'1'8. X _ -gay" *§€.j.¢sg-ssznachaia, Adv.) V5130' & C ....-...-n.......
" " 3 ';~.e1}"s,Acc Muifitaxcs Systems Pvt. Ltd., 'Shred N0.A-50, 11 Main, II Stage, 'P_c:enya-- Endustriai Area, BANGALORE. .. RESPOKDEHT.
w,*_+_*__a_~k,~A~_a» ,\Rg
4. Pemsal of the aforesaid order makes it clear the Txihunai has placed reliance on two judgments of Haryana High Court and Calcutta High K V' same issue.
5. In the matter of Calcutta Colliltlxlt was'; the ; Assessing Office: should have time llasafessee for filing the Audit Report that necessary relief could not have been denied aesessefi?' V I» ..
6. In the ngaifetj "a;1d'.."H:a1yaJaa High Court, it has been held that furnished even at the appellate
7. Whereaalin. the "hand, audit report was filed at the eveAIltiie--:zgh wrongly recorded by the Tribunal ilfiwaa the Assesaing Oficer.
ASub~s_ec';iefiA 7 of Section 80-1A of the Act also does not " feast any ebllgafion on the assessee that the retuxn must be by the audit report. There appears to be proper R reasoning as to why in all cases it cannot be audit report. For meeting the practical ., assessee, it is not necessaxy that £11 all 'cases'; 'it:
accompanied by audit report.
9. In View of the aforesaici were ~ 9f the considered opinion that no law arises in this appeal. Therefore, the e ? Judge Sd/...:
..... Judge Aeiv, » "