M.KUMAR, J. - (1.) THE Revenue has approached this Court claiming that the following substantial question of law would emerge from the the asst. yr. 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 s. 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 s. 12A(b) of the IT 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 Tribunal was right in relying on the decision in the case of CIT vs. Punjab Financial Corporation (2002) 172 CTR (P&H)(FB) 561 : (2002) 254 ITR 6 (P&H)(FB) when there is no mandatory requirement in s. 32AB of the IT Act, 1961, to submit the audit report along with the return of income ? 3. Without prejudice to the ground at serial Nos. 1 and 2 above, whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in relying on the decision in the case of CIT vs. Devradhan Madhavlal Genda Trust (1998) 147 CTR (MP) 461 : (1998) 230 ITR 714 (MP) although the audit report was not filed during the assessment proceedings, but during the appellate proceedings -
(2.) AT the outset Mr. Rajiv Sharma, learned counsel for the assessee, has submitted that the controversy raised in this case stands settled by a Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of CIT vs. Punjab Financial Corporation (supra) wherein it has been held that the provisions of s. 32AB(5) of the Act are not mandatory and the AO 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 s. 32AB(1) of the Act. He has also submitted that the view taken by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of CIT vs. Punjab Financial Corporation (supra) has been followed and applied by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Print Systems & Products (2006) 206 CTR (Mad) 436 : (2006) 285 ITR 260 (Mad).
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the Revenue could not controvert the aforesaid submission nor could he point out any distinguishing feature which may warrant a different view. In view of the above and for the reasons given in the judgments aforementioned, the questions claimed by the Revenue are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.;