MUKAND POLY PRODUCTS V. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUWAHATI- 2 AND ANR.

I.A.(Civil)/3486/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Mukand Poly Products, a partnership firm, appealing against the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which confirmed the disallowance of their claim under section 80-IE of the Income Tax Act. The firm argued that they had fulfilled all mandatory requirements, including the submission of the audit report in Form No.10CCB and the tax audit report in Form 3CB-3CD, as well as the payment of the entire admitted tax before the due date of furnishing the return. The Tribunal's decision was challenged on the grounds that the time-related statutory requirement under section 80AC to furnish the return by the due date is procedural and/or directory, and that there was substantial compliance with the time-related statutory requirements.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 671014 (HC-ASSAM NAGALAND MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 10-01-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Indian Partnership Act, 1932, Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: A SARAF; S CHETIA
• Assessee Lawyers: P K BORA
• Keywords: Audit report; Deduction; Form No.10CCB; Income Tax; Procedural Requirement; Statutory requirement; Form 3CB-3CD
• Section: 139(1); 139(4); 44AB; 80AC; 80-IE

Judgement Text

"Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010255782023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : ITA/1/2024 MUKAND POLY PRODUCTS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT THIRD FLOOR, ROAYL ARCADE, B. BARUAH, R, ULUBARI, GUWAHATI, KAMRUP (M) ASSAM- 781001 AND IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS, REPRESENTED BY ONE OF ITS PARTNERS, MR. MUKUND GUPTA. VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GUWAHATI-2 AND ANR. AYAKAR BHAWAN, GS ROAD, CHRISTIAN BASTI, GUWAHATI-781005. 2:PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL GUWAHATI AAYAKAR BHAWAN GS ROAD CHRISTIAN BASTI GUWAHATI-781005 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR P K BORA Advocate for the Respondent : Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/3486/2023 MUKAND POLY PRODUCTS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP Page No.# 2/4 ACT 1932 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT THIRD FLOOR ROAYL ARCADE B. BARUAH R ULUBARI GUWAHATI KAMRUP (M) ASSAM- 781001 AND IN PRESENT PROCEEDINGS REP. BY ONE OF ITS PARTNERS MR. MUKUND GUPTA. VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GUWAHATI- 2 AND ANR. AAYAKAR BHAWAN GS ROAD CHRISTIAN BASTI GUWAHATI- 781005.. 2:PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL GUWAHATI AAYAKAR BHAWAN GS ROAD CHRISTIAN BASTI GUWAHATI- 781005. ------------ Advocate for : DR. A SARAF Advocate for : MR. S CHETIA appearing for PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GUWAHATI- 2 AND ANR. BEFORE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING) HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI O R D E R 10.01.2024 (L.S. Jamir, C.J(Acting) Page No.# 3/4 Heard Dr. Ashok Saraf, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S.J. Saikia, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. S. Chetia, learned Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department appears for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Notice on respondents are complete. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, the following substantial questions of law are framed:- I. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified and correct in law in confirming the disallowance of claim under section 80-IE of the Act, when the Appellant fulfilled all the mandatory requirements, including the requirement of the submission of the audit report in Form No.10CCB as well as tax audit report in Form 3CB-3CD u/s 44AB of the Act on or before the specified date; and also paid the entire admitted tax before the due date of furnishing the return under sub- section (1) of section 139 of the Act and also furnished the return within the time allowed under sub-section (4) of the section 139 of the Act? II. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the time related statutory requirement under section 80AC to furnish the return on or before the due date under sub-section (1) of section 139 of the Act is procedural and/ or directory to allow deduction under section 80-IE of the Act? III. Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in disallowing the deduction on the ground of non-fulfillment of the time related requirement of section 80AC of the Act when the mandatory and the procedural requirements for claiming deductions under section 80-IE of the Act have been complied with and there was also 'substantial compliance' of the time related statutory requirements of the provisions of section 80AC of the Act,? IV. Whether the Tribunal has not acted illegally and contrary to the judicial Page No.# 4/4 discipline in not following its earlier order on the same issue while deciding the appeal of the appellant? Admit. List the matter after four weeks. In the interim, the order of the Tribunal dated 17.10.2022 shall remain stayed. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING) Comparing Assistant "