Absence Of CA Signature On Form 56F Is Considered A Technical Defect; Which Is Curable: ITAT

The Revenue challenged the order passed by the CIT(A), NFAC, which had allowed Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd. the benefit of deduction under Section 10A for AY 2006-07. The Assessing Officer had denied the deduction solely on the ground that Form 56F was defective.

As per the AO, the audit report did not contain certain particulars and was not validly signed, as it bore the signature of the audit firm Deloitte Haskins & Sells instead of an individual Chartered Accountant. The AO treated the defect as fatal and rejected the deduction.

Issue Before Tribunal: Whether deduction under Section 10A can be denied merely due to technical or curable defects in Form 56F, when the audit report was filed, and substantive compliance with statutory conditions was undisputed.

ITAT’s Decision: The tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal. The Tribunal held that the objections raised by the Assessing Officer related only to technical and curable defects. It noted that the audit report in Form 56F had been filed along with the return and that the missing particulars were duly supplied through a signed addendum before the reassessment was concluded.

Placing reliance on binding judgments of the Madras High Court and decisions of coordinate benches, the ITAT reiterated that procedural or technical defects in audit reports cannot defeat a lawful deduction where substantive compliance is clearly established.

To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below