Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Sterling Contractors & Builders

11/04/2014 Shri Vinay Bhamore, learned counsel for the appellant.There is delay of about 18 days' in filing of this appeal and, therefore, I.A.No.5671/2014 has been filed seeking condonation of delay in filing of this appeal. The delay is condoned. Learned counsel is heard on the question of admission. This is revenue's appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 calling in question the concurrent orders passed by the Commissioner, Appeals and the Tribunal in the matter of disallowing an addition made by the Assessing Officer to the tune of ` 21,11,452/- by holding that the assessee is not entitled to the exemption under Section 80 IB of the Income Tax Act only on the ground that an audited account has not been filed. The Commissioner, Appeals and the Tribunal have considered this question and both have found that the requirement of Section 80IB is procedural in nature is directory and based on the material available in the given case, a discretion can be exercised by taking note of the audit report submitted. If the same is sufficient enough to make an assessment, the same should be accepted. In the present case, the appellate authority found that the assessee did submit an audit report in Form No.10 CCB, even though, it did not accompany the return filed, but produced it subsequently, in the assessment proceedings. Accordingly, it was found that the audit report is not filed along with the return but the same is filed in Form No.10 CCB during the assessment proceedings and, therefore, the decision taken not to grant benefit is sustainable. In Paragraph-3 of the order, the Commissioner, Appeals has referred to various judgments of the High Court to say that the provisions are directory in nature and if on a subsequent date, the audit report is filed, placing reliance in the case of CIT Vs. Panama Chemical Works 245 ITR 684 (M.P.), it is held that if the audit report is subsequently filed, as required under the provisions of Form 10 CCB, it is sufficient compliance with the statutory requirement. The Tribunal also approved the aforesaid findings, based on the principle laid down in the case of Panama Chemical Works (Supra). The concurrent findings recorded by the appellate authorities are in accordance with the requirement of law and, therefore, we see no substantial question of law involved in the matter, warranting interference. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. (Rajendra Menon) Judge (Anil Sharma) Judge