Madhya Pradesh High Court
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Panama Chemical Works on 30 June, 1999
Equivalent citations: [2000]245ITR684(MP)
Author: Shambhoo Singh
Bench: Shambhoo Singh
JUDGMENT
1. The Revenue has filed this application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, requiring the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the following question stated to be question of law for opinion of this court :
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the claim of the assessee under Section 80I is justified even if he had not filed the audit report in Form No. 10CCB along with a return of income, being basic condition ?"
2. It appears that the assessee had claimed deduction under Section 80I which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer but was later allowed by both the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal after it was found that the assessee had filed the audit report dated October 20, 1989, in Form No. 10CCB during the assessment proceedings.
3. The Revenue sought reference of this on the plea that the requirement under the relevant section was that the assessee should have filed the audit report in Form No. 10CCB along with the return and that filing of such report later in the assessment proceedings was not in compliance with the statutory requirement. This contention was overruled by the Tribunal by placing reliance on the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Gujarat Oil and Allied Industries [1993] 201 ITR 525. We find ourselves in agreement with the view taken because filing of the audit report during the assessment proceedings by the assessee amounts to substantial compliance with the statutory requirement under Section 80I(7). It would be too technical to disallow deduction merely on the ground that the audit report was not attached to the return filed by the assessee when the existence of such report is not in doubt and when it is brought on the record during the assessment proceedings.
4. In this view of the matter, it appears to us that the Tribunal had rightly rejected the request of the Revenue for reference under Section 256(1). This application also meets the same fate and is dismissed.