COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. JYOTI JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) HAD dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, and affirmed the order of CIT(A). Learned CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee, and held that since the assessee has produced the certificate obtained from District Industries Centre, wherein a sum of Rs. 4,83,449 was certified to have been converted into loan, the disallowance made under s. 43B was set aside, and the AO was directed to allow the claim, after verification of the certificate. Then disallowance under s. 80 -IA audit report as required by s. 44AB, and during the course of assessment proceedings, claim for deduction was also are fulfilled, and also filed the report in Form No. 10CCD, as prescribed under sub -s. (7) of s. 80 -IA. This was disallowed by the AO, on the ground, the appellant was required to file the report in Form No. 10CCD "along with the return". It was contended before the CIT(A), that the assessee did not claim any deduction under s. 80 -IA in the return filed under s. 139(1). However, after filing of the return, it came to her notice, that the return did not take into account claim of the deduction under s. 80 -IA, in respect of unit M/s Avani Minerals Industries. Accordingly, the account was got audited, and a report, as required by sub -s. (7) of s. 80 -IA was obtained, and the claim for deduction was made, during the course of assessment proceedings. Learned CIT(A), relying upon the judgment, reported in Hemsons Industries vs. ITO (1987) 23 ITD 364 (Hyd), found the requirement of filing the report along with the return was directory, and held, that the claim of deduction is allowable.

(3.) THE Tribunal held, that the requirement of filing report along with return of income is directory, and not mandatory, and if the said report is made available to the AO during the course of assessment proceedings, the lawful deduction to the assessee should not be rejected.