COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. SANKALP WELFARE SOCIETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Revenue has approached this Court claiming that the following substantial question of law would emerge from the the asst. yr. 2002 -03.

(2.) AT the outset Mr. Rajiv Sharma, learned counsel for the assessee, has submitted that the controversy raised in this case stands settled by a Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of CIT vs. Punjab Financial Corporation (supra) wherein it has been held that the provisions of s. 32AB(5) of the Act are not mandatory and the AO has discretion to entertain the audit report, even though the same was not filed along with the return, for grant of benefit of deduction to the assessee in terms of s. 32AB(1) of the Act. He has also submitted that the view taken by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of CIT vs. Punjab Financial Corporation (supra) has been followed and applied by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Print Systems & Products (2006) 206 CTR (Mad) 436 : (2006) 285 ITR 260 (Mad).

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the Revenue could not controvert the aforesaid submission nor could he point out any distinguishing feature which may warrant a different view.