DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 4 (2), CHENNAI V. M/S KARMEN INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, CHENNAI

ITA 698/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0143 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-06-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 26-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS R ANITA
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Earning of tax free income; Revised return; Rule 8D
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 139(5); 80IA

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI , . , BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 698/CHNY/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 4(2), CHENNAI 600 034. VS. M/S. KARMEN INTERNATIONAL P. LTD., NO. 12, PONNIAMMAN NAGAR, AYANAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI 600 095. [PAN: AAACK8998A] ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) ./ I.T.A. NO. 765/CHNY/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 M/S. KARMEN INTERNATIONAL P. LTD., NO. 12, PONNIAMMAN NAGAR, AYANAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI 600 095. VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CORPORATE WARD 4(4), CHENNAI. ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : MRS. R. ANITA, JCIT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE / DATE OF HEARING : 18.06.2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.06.2019 / O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: BOTH THE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AS WELL AS ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 8, CHENNAI, DATED 19.12.2017 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. I.T.A. NOS. 698 & 765/CHNY/18 2 2. THE FIRST GROUND RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [ACT IN SHORT] AND THE ASSESSEE ALSO CHALLENGED CONFIRMATION PART DISALLOWANCE. 3. ON PERUSAL OF THE ACCOUNTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED INTEREST EXPENSES OF .1,23,58,173/- (AFTER REDUCING INTEREST RECEIVED OF .94,08,960/-) AND SHOWN DIVIDEND INCOME OF .2,14,878/- AND INVESTED IN CURRENT ASSETS OF .34,48,65,253/- WITHOUT DISALLOWING ANY EXPENDITURE TOWARDS THE EARNING OF EXEMPTED INCOME. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A R.W. RULE 8D, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DETERMINED EXPENDITURE COMPONENT AND DISALLOWED .51,09,581/- AND BROUGHT TO TAX. ON APPEAL, BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE LD. CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF DIVIDEND INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, BOTH THE REVENUE AS WELL AS ASSESSEE ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW INCLUDING CASE LAW I.T.A. NOS. 698 & 765/CHNY/18 3 AND OTHER DETAILS FILED IN THE FORM OF PAPER BOOK. SIMILAR ISSUE WAS SUBJECT MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2012-13 AND 2013-14. BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JOINT INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. V. CIT 372 ITR 694, VIDE ORDER DATED 21.09.2017 IN I.T.A. NOS. 1279 & 1535/MDS/2017, THE TRIBUNAL RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF EXEMPT INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 29.05.2015 IN I.T.A. NO. 57/MDS/2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED MISCELLANEOUS PETITION TO RECALL THE ORDER TO ADJUDICATE THE ALTERNATIVE GROUND. VIDE ORDER IN M.P. NO. 106/MDS/2015 DATED 28.11.2015, BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE MUMBAI BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. DAGA GLOBAL CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. IN I.T.A. NO. 5592/MUM/2012 DATED 01.01.2015, WHEREIN, IT WAS HELD THAT DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A R.W. RULE 8D CANNOT EXCEED THE EXEMPT INCOME CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE TRIBUNAL DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXEMPT INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. AGAINST THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT THE DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2012-13 AND 2013-14 WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS FILED, VIDE ORDER IN M.P. NO. 75 & 76/CHNY/2018 DATED 08.10.2018 ARISED IN I.T.A. NOS. 1279 & 1535/MDS/2017, THE TRIBUNAL DISMISSED THE MP AS THERE WAS NO MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD. UNDER THE I.T.A. NOS. 698 & 765/CHNY/18 4 ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL AND RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A R.W. RULE 8D TO THE EXTENT OF EXEMPT INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. 6. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPEAL IS THAT THE QUANTIFICATION OF THE NOTIONAL EXPENSES AS PER RULE 8D WAS NOT CORRECT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE, IN THIS CASE, THE QUANTIFICATION OF THE NOTIONAL EXPENSES AS PER RULE 8D DOES NOT ARISE WHEN, BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A R.W. RULE 8D TO THE EXTENT OF EXEMPT INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE SETTLED LAW, ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED EXEMPT INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAS NO OTHER GO, BUT TO DISALLOW THE EXPENDITURE COMPONENT FOR EARNING SUCH EXEMPT INCOME. IF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT VOLUNTARILY DISALLOWED THE EXPENSES, THEN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A R.W. RULE 8D APPLIES. THUS, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. 7. WITH REGARD TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION FOR EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PROVIDENT FUND DUE TO BELATED REMITTANCE, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THOSE PAYMENTS WERE MADE BEFORE THE DUE DATE FOR FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED ON THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 22/2015, I.T.A. NOS. 698 & 765/CHNY/18 5 WHO HAS CLARIFIED THAT THE DUE DATE APPLICABLE IS THE DUE DATE FOR FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT VARIOUS HIGH COURTS JUDGEMENTS HAVE VALIDATED THE PF REMITTANCES MADE UP TO THE LAST DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT INCLUDING THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. INDUSTRIAL SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE INDIA PVT. LTD. IN TCA NOS. 585 & 586 OF 2015 & M.P. NO. 1 OF 2015 DATED 24.07.2015, THE LD. CIT(A) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION AGAINST WHICH, THE REVENUE PREFERRED FURTHER APPEAL. 7.1 BY RELYING UPON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF MAGICK WOODS EXPORTS P. LTD. V. DCIT IN I.T.A. NO. 2105/MDS/2015 DATED 21.06.2017, THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR FROM SECTION 36(1)(VA) OF THE ACT THAT WITH RESPECT TO REMITTANCE OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO RECOGNIZED PROVIDENT FUND, DEDUCTION WILL BE ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE ONLY IF THE SAME IS REMITTED WITHIN THE DUE DATE MENTIONED IN THE RELEVANT PROVIDENT FUND ACT AND THAT THE DECISION OF THE ITAT HAVING BEEN RENDERED SUBSEQUENT TO THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF INDUSTRIAL SECURITY & INTELLIGENCE INDIA PVT. LTD. THEREFORE, THE LD. DR PLEADED FOR REVERSING THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. I.T.A. NOS. 698 & 765/CHNY/18 6 7.2 PER CONTRA, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IS MORE PARTICULARLY BINDING ON THE TRIBUNAL AND PRAYED FOR FOLLOWING THE SAME. 7.3 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN THIS CASE, IT IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PAID THE EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION RECEIVED BY IT BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT. VARIOUS COURTS INCLUDING THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. INDUSTRIAL SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE INDIA PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) HELD THAT THERE CAN BE NO DEEMED ADDITION UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VA) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) OF THE ACT, IF THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT HAS BEEN PAID BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT THE DIVISION BENCH DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. INDUSTRIAL SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE INDIA PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) WAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD BEFORE THE SMC BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL WHILE ADJUDICATING THE CASE OF MAGICK WOODS EXPORTS P. LTD. EVEN THOUGH THE TRIBUNAL RENDERED THE DECISION SUBSEQUENT TO THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT AND ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IS BINDING ON THE TRIBUNAL. WE FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE DECISION OF SMC BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MAGICK WOODS EXPORTS P. LTD. (SUPRA), I.T.A. NOS. 698 & 765/CHNY/18 7 WHEREIN, THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. INDUSTRIAL SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE INDIA PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) WAS NEITHER BROUGHT ON RECORD NOR DISTINGUISHED WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE BY THE TRIBUNAL. SINCE THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IS BINDING ON THE TRIBUNAL AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE SUSTAIN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION AND THUS, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 8. THE NEXT GROUND RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT ON THE TECHNICAL GROUND OF NON FILING THE AUDIT REPORT. THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME HAS CLAIMED AN AMOUNT OF .51,66,520/ - AS DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT HAS INCREASED ITS CLAIM TO .58,45,894/- DUE TO OMISSION OF TAKING THE INCOME FROM THE SECOND UNIT OF WINDMILL. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 139(5) OF THE ACT, REVISED RETURN CAN BE FILED AT ANY TIME BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR OR BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT WHICHEVER IS EARLIER TO CORRECT OR MISTAKES OR OMISSIONS IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY REVISED RETURN OF INCOME WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 139(5) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING I.T.A. NOS. 698 & 765/CHNY/18 8 OFFICER REJECTED THE CLAIM OF INCREASE IN DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. MOREOVER, THE DEDUCTION UNDER THIS SECTION IS ADMISSIBLE ONLY IF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE UNDERTAKING HAVE BEEN AUDITED BY A CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT AND THE AUDIT REPORT DULY SIGNED AND VERIFIED BY SUCH ACCOUNTANT IS FURNISHED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME (FORM 10CCB). FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014- 15, IT IS MANDATORY THAT THE AUDIT REPORT SHOULD BE SUBMITTED ELECTRONICALLY WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME. BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE FORM NO.10CCB ONLY ON 06.11.2015 I. E. BEYOND THE DUE DATE PRESCRIBED IN THE ACT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBMIT THE AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO. 10CCB ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED, THE ENTIRE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT OF .58,45,894/- WAS BROUGHT TO TAX, WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 8.1 ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 8.2 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. IN THIS CASE, THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT WAS REJECTED ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE AUDIT REPORT ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME AND MOREOVER, THE CLAIM OF INCREASE OF DEDUCTION WAS ALSO REJECTED SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY REVISED RETURN OF INCOME WITHIN THE TIME STIPULATED UNDER SECTION 139(5) OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT AT ALL FILED I.T.A. NOS. 698 & 765/CHNY/18 9 THE AUDIT REPORT BEFORE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 26.12.2016. IN THIS CASE, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE AUDIT REPORT. JUST BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO. 10CCB ALONG WITH THE FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT CORRECT IN REJECTING THE AUDIT REPORT, WHICH WAS FILED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. MOREOVER, THE REJECTION OF REVISED (INCREASED) CLAIM OF DEDUCTION MADE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE ALSO APPEARS TO BE NOT CORRECT. DUE TO OMISSION OF TAKING THE INCOME FROM THE SECOND UNIT OF WIND MILL, THE ASSESSEE HAS REVISED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT. 8.3 THE VERY PURPOSE OF THE PROVISION MADE IN THE STATUTE THAT AN ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE FILED THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR OR BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT WHICHEVER IS EARLIER IS TO ACCEPT THE LEGITIMATE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. ESPECIALLY, THE SECOND LIMB OF THE PROVISION THAT BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT WHICHEVER IS EARLIER HAS BEEN MADE IN THE STATUTE SO THAT THE VERY PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT IS TO ASSESS THE CORRECT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY. WHEN THE EXPENDITURES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DULY REFLECTED IN THE AUDIT REPORT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE SAME FOR I.T.A. NOS. 698 & 765/CHNY/18 10 COMPUTING CORRECT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, WHEN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. A CLAIM WHICH IS LEGALLY ALLOWABLE CANNOT BE DISALLOWED FOR THE REASON THAT THE SAME WAS POINTED OUT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY WAY OF FILING OF REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME. DUE TO THE REJECTION OF A LEGITIMATE CLAIM, THE CORRECT INCOME HAS NOT BEEN ASCERTAINED IN THE INSTANT CASE AND THE VERY PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT STANDS DEFEATED. 8.4 EVEN IN APPEAL, A FRESH CLAIM COULD BE ADMITTED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AS DECIDED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF JUTE CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED V. CIT 187 ITR 688(SC) AND IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION LIMITED V. CIT 229 ITR 383(SC). MOREOVER, THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT V. LAB INDIA INSTRUMENT PVT. LTD 277 ITR (AT) 39(PUNE) HAS HELD THAT HAD THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED TO DISENTITLE THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE ANY CLAIM OF DEDUCTION AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD SPECIFIED UNDER SECTION 139(5) OF THE ACT, IT COULD DO SO BY MAKING A SPECIFIC PROVISION IN THIS REGARD. THEREFORE IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH PROVISION, THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO MAKE ANY CLAIM OF DEDUCTION/EXEMPTION IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DUTY BOUND TO ADJUDICATE UPON SUCH CLAIM, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS FILED AFTER THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD UNDER SECTION 139(5) OF THE ACT. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE AUDIT REPORT BEFORE I.T.A. NOS. 698 & 765/CHNY/18 11 CONCLUSION OF THE ASSESSMENT AND CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION OF .58,45,894/- UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ACCEPT THE AUDIT REPORT AND THE REVISED CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT, OTHERWISE ELIGIBLE, AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 24 TH JUNE, 2019 IN CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (DUVVURU RL REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, 24.06.2019 VM/- /COPY TO: 1. / APPELLANT, 2. / RESPONDENT, 3. ( ) /CIT(A), 4. /CIT, 5. /DR & 6. /GF.