M/S SWISS PARK VANIJYA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADIT,CPC, BENGALURU

Though the assessee preferred further appeal, however, ld. CIT(A), in terms of Sec.80-IA(7), held that such form was to be furnished along with return of income within the due date. The notice was given by CPC about the defect. While making claim u/s 80-IA, the assessee was to take due care in filing the requisite documents. Upon combined reading of Sec.80A(5), 80AC, 80-IA(7), 139(9) and Rule 12(2), e-filing of Form No.10CCB is mandatory before due date u/s 139(1). Accordingly, the denial of deduction u/s 80-IA was upheld against which the assessee is in further appeal before us.

Upon careful consideration of factual matrix as enumerated in the preceding paragraphs, the undisputed position that emerges is that the assessee has made claim u/s 80-IA in the original return of income as well as in the revised return of income filed subsequently. The only reason to deny the deduction is the fact that the assessee did not upload Form No.10CCB along with original return of income and the same was filed along with revised return of income. We are of the considered opinion that the requirement of Section 80-IA are that the 3 - accounts should have been audited and the assessee has to furnish the Audit Report in the prescribed form, along with the return of income. In the present case, the assessee has filed the Form No.10CCB along with revised return of income which has been processed by CPC, Bangalore. In such a case, the statutory requirement could be said to have been fulfilled by the assessee.

The Hon’ble High Court of Madras, in CIT V/s AKS Alloys (P.) Ltd. (18 Taxmann.com 25; 14-12-2011), held that the Audit Report in Form No.10CCB could have been filed before the assessment was completed. For the same, Hon’ble Court noted the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court 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. Similar was the view of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case in CIT v. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd. [2009] 317 ITR 249 (Delhi), wherein the Delhi High Court, by following the judgments of the Madras High Court in CIT v. A.N. Arunachalam [1994] 208 ITR 481 and in CIT v. Jayant Patel [2001] 248 ITR 199 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. Similar was the view of High Court of Bombay in CIT v. Shivanand Electronics [1994] 209 ITR 63 as well as various other decisions.