COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PT vs. M/S.J.B.INDL.CORPN.CHD.

PDF · subscribers

ITR/182/1999HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01038625199907 November 2013Bench: MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA,MR. JUSTICE DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the question of law referred by the Tribunal was no longer res integra, meaning it had already been decided. The Court referred to its own Division Bench judgment in Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus Jaideep Industries (1989) ITR 81. In that case, the Court had held that the requirement of filing the audit report along with the return of income in terms of Section 80J(6A) is mandatory. The provision clearly states that the deduction shall not be admissible unless the assessee furnishes the audit report in the prescribed form, duly signed and verified by an accountant, along with the return. Therefore, the Court answered the question in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The reference was disposed of in terms of the answer recorded in the cited judgment.

What were the facts?

This case involves an appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala (the Revenue) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The dispute centers on the assessee's (M/s J.B. Industrial Corporation, Chandigarh) claim for deduction under Section 80-J of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue's grievance is that the Tribunal allowed this claim despite the assessee allegedly failing to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 80J(6A). The procedural history involves a reference of a question of law by the Tribunal to the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in allowing the assessee's claim under Section 80-J even where the assessee failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 80J(6A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (Question of law) Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue contended that the assessee failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 80J(6A), which requires the filing of an audit report along with the return of income for the deduction to be admissible. The Revenue relied on the High Court's own previous judgment in Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus Jaideep Industries 1989 ITR 81.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80-J, Section 80J(6A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITR No.182 of 1999 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

I.T.R. No.182 of 1999.

Date of Decision:-07.11.2013. Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala.

.........Applicant.

Versus M/s J.B. Industrial Corporation, Chandigarh. .........Respondent. CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajive Bhalla

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon.

***** Present:- Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate for the applicant. Rajive Bhalla, J (Oral)

The question of law referred by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench is as follows:

“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in allowing the assessee's claim u/s 80-J even where the assessee failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of section 80J(6A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?”

The question is no longer res-integra as it has been answered by a Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus Jaideep Industries 1989 ITR 81 by holding as follows:

“Turning now to the other question posed, namely, with regard to the filing of the audit report along with the return of Yag Dutt 2013.11.15 10:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

ITR No.182 of 1999 -2- income in terms of section 80J(6A), there can, indeed, be no escape from the conclusion that the requirement of the audit report being filed along with the return of income is rendered mandatory by the provisions thereof. It is pertinent to note in this behalf that this provision clearly lays down that deduction claimed shall not be admissible unless the assessee also furnishes along with the return, the audit report in the prescribed form duly signed and verified by the accountant. This being so, the second question referred has to be answered in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. This reference is disposed of accordingly.”

The reference is, therefore, disposed of in terms of the answer recorded in the aforesaid judgment.

(Rajive Bhalla) Judge (Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon)

Judge

November 07, 2013

'Yag Dutt' Yag Dutt 2013.11.15 10:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →