Dmt 1 ita2182 & 4576-10 t IN THE HIGH COURT OF JDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 2182 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central – I, Mumbai. ..Appellant. Vs. Aishwarya K. Rai. ..Respondent. WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 4576 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central – I, Mumbai. ..Appellant. Vs. Aishwarya K. Rai. ..Respondent. Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Appellant. Mr. P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Counsel with Mr. S.G. Lakhani for Respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND A.A. SAYED, JJ. Dmt 2 ita2182 & 4576-10 DATE : 6TH JULY, 2011. P.C. Under the proviso to Section 80RR of the Income Tax Act, 1961 whether the requirement of submitting certificate in the prescribed form along with the return of income is directory or mandatory is the question raised in these appeals. 2. In the present case, the requisite certificate was not filed along with the return of income but submitted during the course of the assessment proceedings and the Assessing Officer allowed the claim of the assessee under Section 80RR. 3. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax was of the opinion that if the certificate was not filed along with the return of income then the deduction under Section 80RR was not allowable. 4. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal set aside the order of CIT by relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT Dmt 3 ita2182 & 4576-10 vs. Shivanand Electronics [1994] 209 ITR 63 wherein it is held that submitting the return was mandatory but the requirement of filing certificate along with the return of income was directory. In the present case, since the certificate was incomplete, the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the A.O. for fresh consideration with a direction to the assessee to furnish fresh certificate. 5. In these circumstances, we see no reason to entertain these appeals. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs. ( A.A. SAYED, J. ) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)