DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. AUTODECOR PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3666/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 August 2022AY 2012-134 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had been claiming and receiving the deduction under Section 80IC from previous assessment years, the subsequent claim could not be denied without challenging the initial year's eligibility. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was upheld.

What were the facts?

The revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting the disallowance made by the AO under Section 80IC. The AO denied the deduction for want of a mandatory audit report in Form 10CCB.

What were the issues?

Whether the denial of deduction under Section 80IC for a subsequent year is justified when the deduction was allowed in previous years, and the AO's reason for denial was the absence of a specific audit report.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80IC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI

Before: SH. N. K. BILLAIYA & SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA

Hearing: 08/08/2022Pronounced: 08/08/2022

This appeal by the revenue is preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-1, New Delhi dated 10.03.2017 pertaining to A.Y.2012- 13.

2.

The solitary grievance of the revenue is that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance made by the AO u/s. 80IC of the Act.

3.

This appeal was first listed for hearing on 21.01.2021 and thereafter on several dates but none appeared on behalf of the assessee. On 02.05.2022 the Bench requested the DR to get the notice serviced. The DR submitted a report from the ITO regarding service of notice. The inspector in his report stated that at the given address a different person was found who is a Doctor by profession and lives abroad and the assessee is not traceable and accordingly the notice was affixed at the given address. We decided to proceed exparte.

4.

The DR was heard at length. Case records carefully perused.

5.

We find that the claim of deduction u/s. 80 IC of the Act was denied by the AO for want of audit report in form No.10CCB. The AO formed a belief that the assessee has not fulfilled the essential conditions of getting its accounts audited and submit an audit report for claiming eligibility for deduction u/s. 80 IC of the Act. The claim was denied.

6.

Assessee agitated the matter before the CIT(A) and furnished necessary evidences. The CIT(A) found that the assessee is claiming deduction u/s. 80 IC of the Act from A.Y.2009-10 onwards and each assessment year the deduction was allowed.

7.

This means that this is not the first year of claim of deduction and the same is being allowed to the assessee from previous assessment years. Therefore, in our considered opinion unless the initial year of the claim is distributed the subsequent claim cannot be denied. We, therefore, do not find any error or infirmity in the findings of the CIT(A). The appeal filed by the revenue is accordingly dismissed.

8.

Decision announced in the open court on 08.08.2012.

More judgments on Section 80IC

All 1,180 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80IC →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →