ACIT Vs Future Software Private Limited (ITAT Chennai)
ITAT Chennai held that Form 56F not signed by an accountant, as referred in section 10A(5) of the Income Tax Act, is defective and hence deduction under section 10A of the Income Tax Act not admissible. Accordingly, appeal of revenue allowed.
Facts- The present appeal is preferred by the Appellant-Revenue. The only issue emanates for our consideration is to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing deduction under section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ignoring the defective Form 56F in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Conclusion- CIT(A) held the said Form 56F is valid as far as it was signed by “Deloitte Haskins and Sells”, which is a multi-national Chartered Accountant firm. But, we find no such evidence brought on record for our examination in order to decide whether “Deloitte Haskins and Sells” is falling under the definition of “Accountant” as provided in Explanation below to sub-section (2) to section 288 of the Act. In such circumstances, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is not justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under section 10A of the Act.
Held that the assessee could not provide any material supporting the order of the ld. CIT(A) showing that “Deloitte Haskins and Sells” is an “Accountant” as referred in sub-section 5 of section 10A of the Act. Thus, we hold the view of the Assessing Officer is correct in holding the Form 56F is defective and the assessee is not entitled for deduction under section 10A of the Act. Therefore, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is not justified and is set aside. Thus, the grounds raised by the Revenue are allowed.
