Case Details

Citation(s)
2008 SLG 2361 2008 SLD 2361 (2008) 303 ITR 64
Punjab and Haryana High Court

M.M. KUMAR AND AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, JJ.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395


Deprecated: preg_match(): Passing null to parameter #2 ($subject) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 411

Deprecated: htmlspecialchars(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 435

Law:

Section:

[2008] 303 ITR 64 (Punjab & Haryana) HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sankalp Welfare Society M.M. KUMAR AND AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, JJ. I.T.A. NO. 89 OF 2007 AUGUST 14, 2007 Section 32AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Investment deposit account Provisions of section 32AB(5) are not mandatory and Assessing Officer has discretion to entertain audit report, even though same was not filed along with return, for grant of benefit of deduction to assessee in terms of section 32AB(1) [A.Y. 2002-03]. As held in CIT v. Punjab Financial Corpn. [2002] 254 ITR 6 (Punj. & Har.) and CIT v. Print Systems & Products [2006] 285 ITR 260 (Mad.). Provisions of section 32AB(5) are not mandatory and the Assessing Officer has discretion to entertain the audit report, even though the same was not filed along with the return, for grant of benefit of deduction to the assessee in terms of section 32AB(1). CASE REVIEW CIT v. Punjab Financial Corporation [2002] 254 ITR 6 (Punj. & Har.) [FB] and CIT v. Print Systems and Products [2006] 285 ITR 260 (Mad) followed & relied upon. Yogesh Putney for the Appellant. Rajiv Sharma for the Respondent. JUDGMENT M.M. Kumar, J.-The Revenue has approached this court claiming that the following substantial question of law would emerge from the order dated June 9,2006, passed in I.T.A. No. 546/Del/2006 by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi "D" Bench SMC New Delhi in respect of the assessment year 2002-03. "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the hon'ble Tribunal was right in allowing the exemption of section 11 of the assessee even though it had failed to fulfil the statutory requirement of filing audit report in Form No. 10B as provided by section 12A(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Without prejudice to the ground at serial No. 1 above, and on the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the hon'ble Income- tax Appellate Tribunal was right in relying on the decision in the case of CIT v. Punjab Financial Corporation[2002] 254 ITR 6 (P & H) [FB] when there is no mandatory requirement in section 32AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to submit the audit report along with the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492