INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. M/S MARATHON INDIA LTD., JAIPUR

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh Hkkxpan] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 287/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2014-15 cuke The ITO, M/s Marathon India Ltd., Vs. Ward-3(2), D-248, Bihari Marg, Banipark, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCM 1858 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri B. L. Agarwal (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Seema Meena (JCIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 21/06/2018 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 27/06/2018 vkns'k@ ORDER

PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of dated 05.12.2017 of ld. CIT(A), Jaipur for A.Y. 2014-15. The Revenue has raised the following ground as under:- “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in allowing the deduction U/s 80IE on the ground that Tax Audit Report alongwith Form No. 10CCB were filed before the AO at the time of assessment proceedings with a certificate that the above said Forms had been signed by the Chartered Accountant on 27.06.2014 whereas it is mandated by Income Tax Act rules to file relevant tax audit report and Form 10CCB electronically?”

batteries and deactivator. The assessee filed its return of income on

26.08.2014 declaring total income of Rs. 1,82,230/- after claiming

deduction U/s 80IE of Rs. 73,21,215/-. The AO disallowed the claim of

deduction U/s 80IE of the Act on the ground that the assessee did not

file audit report in Form No. 10CCB electronically along with the return

of income. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the

assessee by considering the fact that the assessee has filed the tax

audit report alongwith Form No. 10CCB during the course of

assessment proceedings and therefore, following the decisions on the

point of ld. CIT(A) directed the AO to allow the claim U/s 80IE of the

Act.

Section 80IE(6) r.w.s. 80IA(7) of the IT Act the assessee shall file

audited accounts alongwith audit report in the prescribed form and duly

signed by the Chartered Accountant electronically with the return of

income. The ld. DR has also referred to Rule 12(2) of the Income Tax

Rules and submitted that the audit report in Form No. 10CCB shall be 2 filed electronically. Thus, the ld. DR has submitted that when the

assessee failed to comply with the provisions of Section 80IE(6) as well

as Section 80IA(7) of the Act then, the claim of deduction is not

admissible. She has relied upon the orders of the Assessing Officer.

filed tax audit report along with Form No. 10CCB during the course of

assessment proceedings and claimed deduction U/s 80IE of the Act.

Therefore, merely because tax audit report was not filed alongwith

return of income the claim of the assessee cannot be denied on

technical reasons. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the

decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. G.M.

Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd. 376 ITR 456 and submitted that the

Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld the order of the Hon’ble High court

allowing the claim of deduction U/s 80IB of the IT Act and observed

that even though necessary certificate in Form 10CCB alongwith return

of income had not been filed but same was filed before final order of

assessment was made. Thus it was held that the assessee was entitled

to claim deduction U/s 80IB of the Act. The ld. AR has also relied upon

the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of CIT vs.

Fortuna Foundation Engineers & Consultants (P.) Ltd. 81 3 taxmann.com 189 and submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has

held that the filing of audit report in Form No. 10CCB alongwith return

of income is not mandatory and only directory and assessee cannot be

denied the claim of deduction if it filed audit report in Form No. 10CCB

in the course of assessment proceedings. The ld. AR of the assessee

has supported the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A).

materials on record. The AO has not disputed the eligibility of the

assessee for deduction U/s 80IE of the Act being nature of business and

undertaking of the assessee engaged in the manufacturing of goods or

articles. Only reasons for disallowance of claim of deduction U/s 80IE of

the Act by the AO is not filing of the audit report in form No. 10CCB

along with the return of income. It is also not in disputed that the

assessee filed the requisite tax audit report in Form No. 10CCB during

the course of assessment proceedings and before the assessment order

was passed by the AO. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of CIT

vs. AKS Alloy Pvt. Ltd. 205 Taxman 11 while considering an

identical issue of not filing of audit report in Form 10CCB along with

return of income but filed the same before the assessment was

completed has held in paras 5 to 13 as under:- 4 “5. In so far as it relates to the substantial question of law (1) is concerned, namely, whether the filing of audit report in Form 10CCB is mandatory, it is well settled by a number of judicial precedents that before the assessment is completed, the declaration could be filed. In fact, the said issue came to be decided by the Karnataka High Court in the case in CIT v. ACE Multitaxes Systems (P.) LTD. [2009] 317 ITR 207(Kar.), wherein it was held that when a relief is sought for under Section 80IB of the Act, there is no obligation on the part of the assessee to file return accompanied by the audit report, thereby, holding that the same is not mandatory. Therefore, it is clear that before the assessment is completed if such report is filed, no fault could be found against the assessee. That was also the view of the Delhi High Court in the case in CIT v. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd. [2009] 317 ITR 249/ 178 Taxman 422(Delhi), wherein the Delhi High Court, by following the judgements of the Madras High Court in CIT v. A.N. Arunachalam [1994] 208 ITR 481/ 75 Taxman 529and in CIT v. Jayant Patel [2001] 248 ITR 199/117 Taxman 707 (Mad.) held that the filing of audit report along with the return was not mandatory but directory and that if the audit report was filed at any time before the framing of the assessment, the requirement of the provisions of the Act should be held to have been met.

has also concurred with the said view which was followed by the Tribunal in this case.

. The order of Hon’ble Madras High Court has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. G.M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd.(supra). Accordingly, in view of the various binding precedent as relied upon by the ld. CIT(A) while allowing the claim of the assessee, we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A). Hence, we uphold the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A).

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 27/06/2018.

Sd/- Sd/- ¼Hkkxpan ½ ¼fot; iky jko½ (Bhagchand) (Vijay Pal Rao) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 27/06/2018. *Santosh. आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- The ITO, Ward-3(2), Jaipur. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- M/s Marathon India Ltd., Jaipur. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT(A) 5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत. 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File {ITA No. 287/JP/2018} vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत