Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The Ld. DR vehemently relied on the order of the AO. In response to this, the Ld. AR reiterated the facts and the submissions made before the Ld. CIT(A) and informed the list of dates and sequence of events which would be relevant for the said appeal. He argued that admittedly accounts of the assessee have been duly audited by the Accountant as defined in section 288 of the Act and accounts of the eligible undertaking have been kept separate and distinct by the assessee. He argued that the provisions of section 80IA(7) of the Act would apply only when audit report in the prescribed form is not filed along with the return of income. In the instant case, in the original return of income the deduction u/s. 80IA per se was not claimed by the assessee. Hence, there was no need for the assessee to obtain audit report in Form 10CCB and file it along with the original return of income. He stated that later based on the advice of the tax consultant the audit report Mackintosh Burn Ltd., AY 2006-07 was obtained on 24.03.2008 and revised return filed on 28.03.2008 wherein deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act was claimed by the assessee. In this scenario, the provision of section 80IA(7) of the Act cannot be made applicable to the assessee. No deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act is applicable unless a person furnishes its return of income on or before the due date of filing the return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act. In the instant case, the assessee admittedly had filed the return of income before the due date specified u/s. 139(1) of the Act. Admittedly, the accounts of the eligible undertaking had been duly audited by an accountant much before the due date of filing return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act. It is only that the audit certificate in Form No. 10CCB was obtained after the filing of original return of income and the same was filed along with the revised return of income which is filed within the date specified u/s. 139(5) of the Act. Hence, he argued that the AO ought to have taken cognizance of the valid revised return that was very much available before him while framing assessment. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Dhampur Sugar Mills. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1973) 90 ITR 236 (All), wherein the question raised before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court was whether, original return would continue to form the basis for the purpose of assessment even after it was substituted by a revised return. The Hon'ble High Court held that "when an assessment has to be made the assessee is given a right to file a correct and complete return if he discovers an error or omission in the return filed earlier. The assessment can be completed only on the basis of the correct and complete return. The earlier return, after a revised return has been filed, cannot form the basis of assessment although it may be used to indicate the conduct of the assessee. Hence, for the purpose of assessment of income, the effective return must be the revised return filed by the assessee ultimately.