M/s. Hi-Tech Sweet Water Technology Pvt.Ltd., Bardoli V. The ACIT.,Cent.Circle-4, Surat

ITA 597/SRT/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7772 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-08-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 29-08-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANUPAMA SINGLA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 80IB; 80IA; 80IC; 139(1); 80IC; 148; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM ./ITA NO.597/SRT/2018 ( [ [ / ASSESSMENT YEAR: (2013-14) (VIRTUAL COURT HEARING) M/S.HI-TECH SWEET WATER TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD., 4, GOPAL NAGAR, NANDAN CHAR RASTA, BARDOLI 394601. V S. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT. ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO.: AAACH 7432 C (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI KIRAN K. SHAH - AR RESPONDENT BY : MS. ANUPAMA SINGLA SR. DR / DATE OF HEARING : 08/07/2021 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23/08/2021 / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: CAPTIONED APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-4, SURAT, DATED 01.06.2018, WHICH IN TURN ARISES OUT OF AN ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT), DATED 29.02.2016. GRIEVANCES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1)THE LEARNED CIT (A) GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.13,09,512/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM U/S 80IA OF THE ACT MERELY BECAUSE THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS NOT FILLED AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 139 (1) OF THE ACT. 2)THE ASSESSEE RESERVES RIGHT TO ADD, ALTER AND WITHDRAW OF ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. SUCCINCT FACTS ARE THAT ASSESSEE BEFORE US IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DEALING IN WATER PURIFICATION PLANT, TRADING IN TEXTILES GOODS. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS ENGAGED IN INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y.) 2013-14, BELATEDLY ON 29.03.2014, WITH CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER PAGE | 2 ITA NO.597/SRT/2018 FOR A.Y. 2013-14 M/S. HI-TECH SWEET WATER TECHNOLOGIES (P) LTD., SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT OF RS. 13,09,512/-. HOWEVER, RETURN OF INCOME WAS TO BE SUBMITTED ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF AUDITED RETURN OF INCOME GIVEN BY SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT I.E. 31.10.2013 (EXTENDED DATE). DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUESTED TO FURNISH THE EXPLANATION, WHY THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED DUE TO FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME AFTER DUE DATE. 3. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED A WRITTEN SUBMISSION ALONG WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS. THE IMPORTANT PART OF WRITTEN SUBMISSION IS REPRODUCED BELOW: ............... I HAVE TO STATE THAT MY CLIENT HAD ALREADY FILED TAX AUDIT REPORT ALONG WITH REPORT IN FORM NO. 10CCB FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF U/S 801A OF THE ACT. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS NOT FILED AS THE PAYMENT OF SELF- ASSESSMENT TAX COULD NOT BE MADE DUE TO FINANCIAL STRINGENCY. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE COPY OF AUDIT REPORT AND FORM NO. 10CCB WAS FILED IN TIME, THE SUBSTANTIVE PART OF COMPLIANCE WAS READYMADE. DURING THE ASSESSMENT STAGE IT WAS ALSO ARGUED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80AC OF THE ACT IS DIRECTORY AND NOT MANDATORY, AS HELD IN THE CASE OF ACIT V/S. V.N. DEVADOS (ITAT CHENNAI BENCH-'A) (ITA NO. 1219 TO 1223/MAD./2012), AND IT WAS ALSO HELD THAT, IF AN ATTEMPT IS MADE IN GOOD FAITH TO PERFORM THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS, EVEN IF IT DOES NOT PRECISELY MEET THE TERMS OF STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS, THE PERFORMS IS TILL BE CONSIDERED COMPLETE, IF THE ESSENTIAL PURPOSE IS ACCOMPLISHED. IN THE ASSESSEE`S CASE, THE TAX AUDIT REPORT WAS FILED IN TIME AND, THEREFORE, THE MAJOR STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS WERE COMPLIED. 4. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS CLAIMED IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME AS DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE IT ACT AND THE RETURN OF INCOME HAS BEEN FILED AFTER THE EXPIRY OF DUE DATE THEREFORE, NO SUCH DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA SHOULD BE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT TO THE TUNE OF RS.13,09,512/- WAS NOT ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. PAGE | 3 ITA NO.597/SRT/2018 FOR A.Y. 2013-14 M/S. HI-TECH SWEET WATER TECHNOLOGIES (P) LTD., 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) WHO HAS CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 6. SHRI KIRAN K. SHAH, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD FILED AUDIT REPORT, TAX AUDIT REPORT ALONG WITH REPORT IN 10CCB FOR CLAIMING OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 801A OF THE ACT BEFORE THE DUE DATE I.E. 30.09.2013. THEREFORE, LD COUNSEL PLEADS THAT SUBSTANTIVE PART OF COMPLIANCE WAS ALREADY MADE. THE LD COUNSEL STATES THAT THERE WAS HUGE LIABILITY OF SELF- ASSESSMENT TAX (RS. 1,50,21,672/-) AND THE SAME COULD NOT BE PAID DUE TO FINANCIAL STRINGENCY AND THEREFORE, THE RETURN OF INCOME COULD NOT BE FILED BEFORE DUE DATE AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 139 (1) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, LD COUNSEL ARGUES THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY MADE SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE THEREFORE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA MAY BE ALLOWED. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, MS. ANUPAMA SINGLA, LD.DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. SINCE, THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAS NOT FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME WITHIN THE DUE DATE PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT, THEREFORE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED AND THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE UPHELD. 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSION PUT FORTH ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENTS FURNISHED AND THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON, AND PERUSED THE FACT OF THE CASE INCLUDING THE FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A) AND OTHER MATERIALS BROUGHT ON RECORD. WE NOTE THAT SOLITARY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION PAGE | 4 ITA NO.597/SRT/2018 FOR A.Y. 2013-14 M/S. HI-TECH SWEET WATER TECHNOLOGIES (P) LTD., 80IA OF THE ACT FOR RS. 13,09,512/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT BUT HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.03.2014 I.E. AFTER THE DUE DATE I.E. 31.10.2013 (EXTENDED DATE) OF FILING OF AUDITED RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(1), HAD LAPSED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME AFTER THE EXPIRY OF 5 MONTHS OF THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT, HENCE THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 80IA OF THE ACT OF RS. 13,09,512/- IS NOT ALLOWED. LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS AND ALSO THE TAX AUDIT REPORT ALONG WITH REPORT IN FORM NO. 3CCB FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT BEFORE THE DUE DATE I.E. 30.09.2013 AND THEREFORE, THE SUBSTANTIVE PART OF COMPLIANCE WAS MADE. THE LD COUNSEL POINTED OUT THAT ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO MAKE THE PAYMENT OF SELF- ASSESSMENT TAX OF RS. 1,50,21,672/- ON ACCOUNT OF FINANCIAL PROBLEMS AND THEREFORE, THE RETURN OF INCOME WOULD NOT BE FILED WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME PERIOD UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT. WE NOTE THAT ESSENTIAL DOCUMENTS, SUCH AS, AUDITED ACCOUNTS, THE TAX AUDIT REPORT ALONG WITH REPORT IN FORM NO. 3CCB FOR CLAIMING OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT WERE AVAILABLE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AUDITED ACCOUNTS CONTAIN THE NET PROFIT EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. TAX AUDIT REPORT CONTAINS THE INFORMATION RELATING TO COMPLIANCE OF INCOME TAX AND FORM NO. 3CCB CONTAINS THE INFORMATION FOR CLAIMING OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, TO EXAMINE THE GENUINENESS OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA THE RELEVANT DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS WERE AVAILABLE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HENCE, WE NOTE THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE. WE NOTE THAT ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS FACING GENUINE DIFFICULTY, AS THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS UNABLE TO MAKE THE PAYMENT OF SELF- ASSESSMENT TAX OF RS. 1,50,21,672/- ON ACCOUNT OF FINANCIAL PROBLEMS AND THEREFORE, THE RETURN OF INCOME WOULD NOT BE FILED WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME PERIOD UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT. THE LD COUNSEL FURTHER URGES THAT, EVEN IN CASES WHERE FORM 10CCB WAS FILED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE SAME OUGHT TO BE CONSIDERED AS FULFILLMENT OF THE CONDITION. THE LD COUNSEL THEN BUTTRESS ASSESSEES CASE WITH THE AID OF VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRECEDENT PAGE | 5 ITA NO.597/SRT/2018 FOR A.Y. 2013-14 M/S. HI-TECH SWEET WATER TECHNOLOGIES (P) LTD., AS WELL, AND SUBMITTED BEFORE THE BENCH THAT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. MEDICOP LTD (2010) 323 ITR 554 (MP), IT WAS HELD THAT FILING OF AUDIT REPORT IS PROCEDURAL AND DIRECTORY IN NATURE AND THE SAME CAN BE FILED AT THE APPELLATE STAGE. 9. WE NOTE THAT HON`BLE SUPREME COURT WHILE INTERPRETATING THE DEDUCTIONS, IN THE CASEOF COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE VS. PARLE EXPORTS (P)LTD., (1989) 1 SCC 345, HELD AS FOLLOWS: DO NOT EXTEND OR/WIDEN THE AMBIT AT THE STAGE OF APPLICABILITY. BUT ONCE THAT HURDLE IS CROSSED, CONSTRUE IT LIBERALLY. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE TO CLAIM THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT. THERE ARE NO FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT. WE NOTICED THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE WITH THE MAIN REQUIREMENTS TO CLAIM THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DENIED ON TECHNICALITIES WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS LEGALLY OTHERWISE ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION. 10. WE NOTE THAT COORDINATE BENCH OF HYDERABAD IN THE CASE OF SRI S. VENKATAIAH, IN ITA NO.984/HYD/2011, ORDER DATED 31.03.2012, HAS NOTED THAT THERE WAS A DELAY OF 74 DAYS IN FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME WHICH WAS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF ASSESSEE. THIS WAS ALSO CONFIRMED BY THE STATUTORY AUDITOR VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 20.3.2011. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME BELATEDLY AND THIS IS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE. WHEN THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF JUSTICE INVOLVED TECHNICALITIES SHOULD BE IGNORED. HENCE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DENIED ON TECHNICALITIES WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS LEGALLY OTHERWISE ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION. THE FINDINGS OF THE COORDINATE BENCH AR REPRODUCED BELOW: 13. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 23.12.2008. THE DUE DATE FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS 31.10.2008. AS SUCH THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS BELATED. IN THIS THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT WHICH WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS THE RETURN OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FILED WITHIN THE TIME AS PRESCRIBED PAGE | 6 ITA NO.597/SRT/2018 FOR A.Y. 2013-14 M/S. HI-TECH SWEET WATER TECHNOLOGIES (P) LTD., U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN REASONS FOR DELAY IN FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREPARING ITS ACCOUNTS THROUGH COMPUTER AND THE COMPUTER GOT CORRUPTED DUE TO VIRUSES AND IN SPITE OF CONTINUOUS EFFORTS BY THE COMPUTER TECHNICAL PERSONNEL TO RETRIEVE THE DATA IN TIME FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME, PROBLEM PERSISTED IN THE SYSTEM. BY TRYING TO RETRIEVE THE DATA FOR 4 DAYS THE REQUIRED DATA COULD NOT BE RETRIEVED AND THE BACKED UP DATA WERE AVAILABLE ONLY UP TO 31ST JANUARY, 2008 IN THE CD AND THE ENTIRE DATA FOR THE TWO MONTHS PERIOD, FEBRUARY AND MARCH, 2008, HAD TO BE RE- ENTERED INTO THE COMPUTER SYSTEM AGAIN. ON PREPARATION OF THE FINAL ACCOUNTS AND FINALISING OF STATUTORY AUDIT IT TOOK A LITTLE EXTRA TIME THAT RESULTED IN BELATED FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME. THUS THERE WAS A DELAY OF 74 DAYS IN FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME WHICH IS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF ASSESSEE. THIS WAS ALSO CONFIRMED BY THE STATUTORY AUDITOR VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 20.3.2011. BEING SO, IN OUR OPINION THERE IS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME BELATEDLY AND THIS IS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE. WHEN THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF JUSTICE INVOLVED TECHNICALITIES SHOULD BE IGNORED. FURTHER, WE ARE SUPPORTED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS. 1231 & 1199/HYD/2010 IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. M/S. VEGA CONVEYORS & AUTOMATION LTD ORDER DATED 31ST DECEMBER, 2010 WHEREIN IN PARA 5 OF THE ORDER THE TRIBUNAL HELD AS FOLLOWS: '5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, AND OTHER MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, INCLUDING THE CASE-LAW RELIED UPON BY THE PARTIES. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE HAS FILED THE AUDIT REPORT IN FORM LOCCB DURING THE COURSE OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ISSUE THAT ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER S. 80IB ON THE GROUND THAT THE AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 10CCB WAS NOT FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME; OR WHETHER THE CIT(A) WAS CORRECT IN PROCEEDING ON THE BASIS OF FORM 10CCB FILED DURING THE COURSE OF RE- ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER S. 80IB OF THE ACT. IT IS SETTLED POSITION OF LAW, AS CONSISTENTLY HELD BY VARIOUS BENCHES OF THIS TRIBUNAL AND AS HELD IN VARIOUS DECISIONS REFERRED TO BY THE CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THAT THOUGH FILING OF AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 10CCB IS MANDATORY AND PREREQUISITE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER S. 80IB, NON-FILING OF THE SAME ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME IS ONLY A CURABLE DEFECT, AND ASSESSEE'S CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION HAS TO BE CONSIDERED ON ITS MERITS AS AND WHEN THE DEFECT IS CURED BY FILING FORM 10CCB. WE ARE FORTIFIED IN THIS BEHALF BY THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HEMSONS INDUSTRIES (SUPRA), RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. IT IS CONTENDED BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER S. 80IB CAN BE ENTERTAINED AND EXAMINED ON MERITS, WHEN THE AUDIT REPORT IS FILED BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DONE IN THE PRESENT CASE, SINCE THE AUDIT REPORT WAS FILED ONLY DURING THE COURSE OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH CANNOT END UP GIVING ADDITIONAL DEDUCTIONS/BENEFITS TO THE ASSESSEE. WE DO NOT FIND MERIT EVEN IN THIS CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. IN THE CASE OF HEMSONS INDUSTRIES (SUPRA), BEFORE THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, FOR ONE OF THE YEARS UNDER APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT, VIZ., ASSESSMENT YEAR 1979-80, AUDIT REPORT WAS FILED DURING THE COURSE OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE UNDER S. 148 ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT CITED ABOVE, AMONG OTHERS, WE FIND NO JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). WE ACCORDINGLY UPHOLD THE SAME AND REJECT THE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL.' PAGE | 7 ITA NO.597/SRT/2018 FOR A.Y. 2013-14 M/S. HI-TECH SWEET WATER TECHNOLOGIES (P) LTD., 14. IN OUR OPINION, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DENIED ON TECHNICALITIES WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS LEGALLY OTHERWISE ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION. AS SUCH WE ARE INCLINED TO DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS DEVOID OF MERIT. 15. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 11. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ASSESSEE`S CASE, AS NARRATED ABOVE, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT, TO THE TUNE OF RS. 13,09,512/-. IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT INSTANT ADJUDICATION SHALL NOT BE TREATED AS A PRECEDENT IN ANY PRECEDING OR SUCCEEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. 12. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED ON 23/08/2021 BY PLACING RESULT ON NOTICE BOARD. SD/- SD/- (PAWAN SINGH) (DR. A.L. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SURAT / / DATE: 23/08/2021 / SGR COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. PR.CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, SURAT 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // /// / TRUE COPY / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR/SR. PS/PS ITAT, SURAT