Tide Water Oil Co. (India) Ltd., Kolkata vs Department Of Income Tax
6.1. We find that the issue is squarely covered by the decisions of Hon'ble
jurisdictional High Court in the cases of CIT vs. Magnum Exports (P) Ltd. [262 I.T.R.
10 (Cal)], Murli Export House & Ors. vs. CIT (supra) and CIT vs. Berger Paints
(India) Ltd. (supra). We further observe that the ld. C.I.T.(A) apart from relying on
several judicial pronouncements has also allowed the deduction to the assessee u/s.80-
IB for the assessment years under consideration on identical facts and situation by
following the order of I.T.A.T. in the assessee's own case for assessment years 1998-
3
99 to 2000-01 vide ITA Nos. 1791 to 1793/Kol/2007. On the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, therefore, we find that the common issue in these appeals
before us is squarely covered by the decisions of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court
referred to above. It is an admitted position that preparation of account is mandatory,
but filing of the same is a procedural matter. The ratio of the aforesaid decisions of
Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court is that the benefit of deduction u/s. 80-IB of the Act
is available where the audit report has been filed before the completion of the
assessment, inasmuch as filing of audit report in Form No.10CCB is directory in
nature and not mandatory. In this case, the assessee did not enclose the audit report in
Form No.10CCB along with the returns of income, but filed the same during
assessment proceedings before the A.O., i.e. before the completion of assessments.
6.2. Further, the provisions of Sec. 80-IB of the Act speak about deduction in
respect of profits and gains from certain industrial undertakings other than
infrastructure development undertakings.