Commissioner of Income Tax vs Smt. T. Sarala Pillai

The Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram has filed this appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench in I.T.A. No. 695/(Coch)/95.

The respondent assessee is a cashew exporter. In the assessment under the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') for the year 1992-93 the assessee claimed deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act. The assessing officer disallowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that the certificate as contemplated under sub-section (4A) of section 80HHC from the export house in Form No. 10CCAE did not accompany the return. In the appeal filed by the assessee the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the claim following the decision of this court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd., . Being aggrieved by the said order, the revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal relying on its earlier decision in the case of Sri Krishnan Nair I.T.A. No. 688/Coch/95, Kollam dismissed the appeal. Against the said order the revenue has raised three questions of law. The question is as to whether the certificate contemplated under sub-section (4A) of section 80HHC is to be produced along with the return. The Tribunal in Krishnan Nair''s case (supra) has taken the view that the requirements of production of certificate along with the return is only directory and that the certificate can be produced at any time before the completion of the assessment. The decision of the Tribunal in Krishnan Nair''s case (supra) came up for consideration before this court in CIT v. Krishnan Nair : 2003(1)KLT428 where it was held that the requirement of filing the declaration along with the return of income contemplated under sub-section (4A) of section 80HHC is only directory and the filing of the declaration to claim the benefit is no doubt, mandatory. It was also held that since the time of filing the declaration is directory in nature it can be filed at any time before the completion of the assessment.

We have heard Sri. George K. George, learned Central Government standing counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri P. Balachandran, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. In the light of the judgment in Krishnan Nair''s case (supra) above we are of the view that the Tribunal has rightly held that the requirement of production of certificate contemplated under sub-section (4A) of section 80HHC along with the return is only directory and that the said certificates can be produced at any time before the completion of the assessment. The question is answered accordingly.

There is no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.