COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. MAHALAXMI RICE FACTORY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN terms of the direction given by this Court in ITC No. 1 of 1984 vide order dt. 24th Aug., 1988, the following question of law arising out of Tribunal's order dt. 22nd Aug., 1983 in ITA No. 429 of 1980, for the asst. yr. 1977 -78, was referred to this Court for its opinion : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the provisions of Section 80J(6A) of the IT Act, 1961, are directory and not mandatory and in allowing the assessee's claim under Section 80J in that view

(2.) THE assessee, which is a registered firm, filed its return of income on 31st Aug., 1977 declaring net income of Rs. 81,190, though, as per provisions, it was required to be filed on or before 31st July, 1977. In the return, a claim of deduction under Section 80J of the IT Act (for short 'the Act') was made. Along with the return, the assessee did not furnish any audit report. The claim of the assessee with regard to deduction under Section 80J of the Act was disallowed by the AO with the observations that 'relief under Section 80J of the Act has not been allowed as the assessee did not get its accounts audited as required under Section 80J(6A) of the Act', Accordingly, vide assessment order dt. 19th Dec., 1978, the income of the assessee was computed at Rs. 1,09,010, as against returned income of Rs. 81,190. The assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A), who upheld the order passed by the AO, holding that the provisions contained in Section 80J(6A) are mandatory in character.

(3.) WHEN the case was taken up for hearing, no one appeared for either of the parties.