ZENITH PROCESSING MILLS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench -C referred following questions of law arising out of its order dt. 15th Sept., 1982 in ITA No. 1030/Ahd/81 for the asst. yr. 1976 -77.

(2.) FROM perusal of sub -s. (6A) it is apparent that compliance of two things is necessary. First requirement is that statement of accounts for the previous year relevant to the assessment year for which deduction is claimed must have been audited by an accountant and second part is that the assessee must furnish along with his return of income the report of such audit in the prescribed form duly signed and verified by such accountant. It can be stated without fear of contradiction that the former is the requirement which furnishes substantial foundation for claiming allowance and the latter is the requirement of furnishing proof that foundation for claiming such deduction has been laid. In our opinion while compliance of the former before the deduction is claimed is mandatory and so far as manner of submitting proof of such compliance of filing along with the return is concerned, is directory because such requirement falls in the realm of procedure for furnishing evidence in support of the claim and which can be furnished at the time while allowance or disallowance under s. 80J is being considered by the concerned authority.

(3.) COMING to the first question, we are of the opinion that as provision of furnishing of report in the prescribed form is held to be directory, the assessee can be permitted to produce such report at a later stage when question for disallowance arise during the course of the proceedings in a given case, it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and, therefore, the assessee may be permitted to produce such report, if it has not been produced earlier.