M.M.KUMAR, J. - (1.) NO . 1281/Asr/1992 in respect of the asst. yr. 1991 -92 has been challenged by way of present reference. On the claim made by the Revenue on the application filed under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (for brevity 'the Act'), the following question of law has been referred for the opinion of this Court : "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has been right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to benefits of deduction under s. 80HHC of the IT Act, 1961 -
(2.) THE facts as revealed by the statement of the case are that the assessee is an individual and exporter for the last so s. 44AB of the Act In favour of assessee could not be attached with the return. On that aspect, the Tribunal has, however, taken the following view :
(3.) WAS not a company nor a co -operative society whose accounts were separately required to be audited under the Act. This is a case of individual and tax audit is required under cl. (BB) of Explanation to s. 44AB of the Act which was eventually filed and furnished. According to cl. (E) if the accounts were audited then the return was required to be accompanied by the copy of P&L a/c, balance sheet and auditor's report. The auditor's report under s. 44AB of the Act was not enclosed and the defect was required to be removed by the AO. Therefore, it was held that the benefit of deduction under s. 80HHC of the Act were admissible to the assessee. The question as to whether the AO has the discretion to entertain the audit report later in point of time though the same was not filed with the return for granting the benefit of deduction to the assessee in terms of s. 32AB(1) of the Act has been considered by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of CIT vs. Punjab Financial Corporation (2002) 172 CTR (P&H) 561 : (2002) 254 ITR 6 (P&H) wherein it has been held that the provisions of s. 32AB(5) of the Act are not mandatory and the AO has the discretion to entertain the audit report even later. The view taken by the Full Bench in Punjab Financial Corpn.'s case (supra) has been followed and applied by a Division Bench of Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Print systems & products (2006) 206 CTR (Mad) 436 : (2006) 285 ITR 260 (Mad).;