INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. AGROH TOLL HIGHWAYS PRIVATE LIMITED, INDORE

(ii) of the Act, an addition of Rs. 10,29,33,030/- on the ground that form no:-10CCB was not filed within due date for Assessment Year-2021-22 for claiming deduction u/s 80 IA of the Act.[page 5]. That the aforesaid intimation order u/s 143 (1) (a) (ii) bears no: - CPC/21-22/290800403 and same is dated 13.11.2022 which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Intimation Order”.

2.2 That the Assessee is a company engaged in building and operating toll infrastructure projects. The assessee had filed its return of Income on 09.03.2022 much before the due date of filing of the return of Income. The assessee however filed audit report on 07.05.2022, under ACK No.- 610556290070522. The CPC Bangalore however disallowed the deduction under section 80 IA merely on the ground that Page 2 of 12 10,49,29,280/- was thus made.

2.3 That the Assessee being aggrieved by the “Impugned Intimation Order” prefers the first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before the Ld. CIT (A) who by the “Impugned Order” has allowed the first appeal of the assessee on the grounds and reasons stated therein. The core grounds and reasons for the dismissal of the first appeal were as under:-

“5.4 appellant. In the submissions made the appellant has stated that it has filed the return of income on 09/03/2022 which is before the due date of 15/03/2022 and it has filed the audit report in Form 10CCB on 07/05/2022. The appellant has stated that the CPC Bangalore has disallowed the deduction under section 801A merely on a ground that the audit report was furnished after due date by the appellant. 5.5 Further, the appellant has submitted that furnishing of the auditors' report along with the return be treated as a procedural provision, and the exemption shall not be denied merely on the ground that the audit report was not filed on time. The appellant has relied upon Jurisdictional HC decision in case of CIT vs. Panama Chemicals Works [2007] 165 TAXMAN 135 (MP), decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries 201 ITR 325 and decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Satish Cold Storage Vs. Dy. C.I.T. in support of its claim. 5.6 In a recent judgment dated 30.01.2024 given by the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi 'G' Bench in for AY 2019-20 in the case of Sanjay Kukreja Vs ACIT the issue under adjudication in the present appeal has been considered and observations as below has been made:

"5. Ld. DR placed reliance on the orders of the Ld. CIT(Appeals). Heard rival submissions. The only issue is to be decided is as to whether the Form 10CCB is mandatorily to be filed along with the return or the due date specified u/s 139(1) of the Act for claiming deduction u/s 801A of the Act. We observe that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Contimeters Electricals Pvt. Ltd. (supra) held that the requirement of filing the audit report along with the return is not mandatory but directory and that if the audit report is filed at any time before framing of assessment the requirement of section 801A(7) would be met observing as under:

"According to the Commissioner of Income Tax since no audit report, duly verified and signed in the prescribed Form no. 10CCB under Rule 18BBB had been furnished along with the return, the condition for claiming deduction had not been satisfied and, therefore, the action of the Assessing Officer in allowing rebate u/s 80-1A was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.

After issuance of the notice the Commissioner of Income Tax passed the order dated 29.03.2007 whereby he held that he was fully satisfied that the assessment which had been completed by the Assessing Officer was prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and that it was erroneous in as much as the assessee had not satisfied the conditions laid down u/s 80-IA and consequently the deduction under that section for the sum of Rs. 14,27,351/-had been wrongly allowed. The CIT(A), therefore, cancelled the assessment which had been earlier framed and directed the AO to complete the assessment as per law, in terms of the directions given in the said order.

Being aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal which was allowed by the Tribunal by virtue of the impugned order. The Tribunal took the view that the provisions of section 801A(7) with regard to filing of the audit report along with the return were not mandatory and were merely directory. In coming to such conclusion, the Tribunal referred to the decisions of the Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries, 201 ITR 325 (Guj.). In that decision the provisions of Section 80J(6A) were considered. The wording of Section 80J(6A) is similar to that of section 80-IA(7) which is in issue in the present appeal. The Gujarat High Court took the view that the word 'shall' which occurs in section 80J(6A) be read as 'may' and that the requirement of filing of an audit report along with the return was only to be taken as directory in nature. The Gujarat High Court took the view that in case the audit report is Page 4 of 12

AGROH TOLL HIGHWAYS PRIVATE LIMITED A.Y.2021-22 submitted at any time before the framing of the assessment, there would be substantial compliance with the provisions of Section 80J(6A)

The Tribunal also relied on the decision of the Madras High Court in CIT vs. A.N. Arunachalam, 208 ITR 481 (Mad.), which, again, while considering the provisions of Section 80J(6A), took the same view as that of the Gujarat High Court.

We notice that there are other decisions of other Courts taking the same view. The decisions being, CIT vs. Shivanand Electricals (1994) 209 ITR 63 (Bombay); Zenith Processing Mills vs. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 721 (Guj.); Cit vs. Jayant Patel (2001) 248 ITR 199 (Mad.) and CIT vs. Mahalaxmi Rice Factory (2007) 294 ITR 631 (P&H).

In view of this long line on decisions of various High Courts in considering the provisions of Section 80J(6A) which are similar to the provisions of Section 801A(7), we feel that the Tribunal has arrived at the correct conclusion that the requirement of filing the audit report along with the return is not mandatory but directory and that if the audit report is filed at any time before the framing of the assessment, the requirement of section 801A(7) would be met."

6. We find that similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. AKS Alloys Pvt. Ltd. (supra), wherein it has been held as under.

"5. In so far as it relates to the substantial question of law (1) is concerned, namely, whether the filing of audit report in Form 10CCB is mandatory, it is well settled by a number of judicial precedents that before the assessment is completed, the declaration could be filed. In fact, the said issue came to be decided by the Karnataka High Court in the case in CIT v. ACE Multitaxes Systems (P.) LTD. [2009] 317 ITR 207 (Kar.), wherein it was held that when a relief is sought for under Section 801B of the Act, there is no obligation on the part of the assessee to file return accompanied by the audit report, thereby, holding that the same is not mandatory. Therefore, it is clear that before the assessment is completed if such report is filed, no fault could be found against the assessee. That was also the view of the Delhi High Court in the case in CIT v. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd. [2009] 317 ITR 249/ 178 Taxman 422 (Delhi), wherein the Delhi High Court, by following the judgements of the Madras High Court in CIT v. Α.Ν. Arunachalam [1994] 208 ITR 481/75 Taxman 529 and in CIT v. Jayant Patel [2001] 248 ITR 199/117 Taxman 707

(Mad.) held that the filing of audit report along with the return was not mandatory but directory and that if the audit report was filed at any time before the framing of the assessment, the requirement of the provisions of the Act should be held to have been met.

7. The Calcutta High Court in the case in the CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 503/r20031 126 Taxman 435 (Cal.) has also concurred with the said view which was followed by the Tribunal in this case.

5.7 Similarly, on the issue under adjudication, in a recent judgment dated 30.12.2024, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Pune 'A' Bench in for AY 2022- 23 in the case of Desai Infra Projects (1) Private Limited, Pune Vs CIT has observed as under:

"6.4. Since the assessee in the instant case has admittedly filed the audit report in Form-10CCB prior to the processing of the return, therefore, respectfully following the decisions cited (supra), we are of the considered opinion that assessee cannot be denied deduction u/sec, 801A(4) of the Act. Accordingly, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is reversed and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed."

5.8 In the case of the appellant, the return of income was filed on 09/03/2022 before the due date of filing of return of income in which claim of deduction u/s 801A amounting to Rs. 10,29,33,035/- was made. The audit report in Form 10CCB was not filed with the return of income or within the due date of filing of return of income i.e. 15/03/2022, but Form 10CCB was filed/uploaded belatedly on 07/05/2022. However, the audit report in Form 10CCB was available with the AO, CPC when the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act was issued on 13/11/2022

5.9 In view of above, respectfully following the decisions given by the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Pune 'A' Bench dated 30.12.2024 and Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi 'G' Bench dated 30.01.2021 as given above, the appellant is found to be entitled to deduction claimed u/s 801A of Rs. 10,29,33,035/-. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer is directed to allow the claim of deduction u/s 80IA of Rs. 10,29,33,035/- to the appellant and delete the adjustment made in intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act, dated 13/11/2022.

5.10 Ground no. 4 is general in nature and does not require adjudication. 6.0 In the result, the appeal of the appellant is allowed.” 2.4 That the Revenue being aggrieved by the “Impugned Order” has preferred the instant appeal before this tribunal and has raised the following grounds of appeal in the form no.-36 against the “Impugned Order” which are as under:-

“Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,29,33,035/- whichwasmade on account of disallowance of claim of 1 deduction

AGROH TOLL HIGHWAYS PRIVATE LIMITED A.Y.2021-22 u/s 801A of the Act. The audit report in Form 10CCB was not filed with the return of income or within the due date of filing of return of income i.e. 15/03/2022, but Form 10CCB was filed/uploaded belatedly on 07/05/2022.”

as per form no: - 36 were read out. It was prayed that Impugned Order be Set Aside and “Intimation Order” be restored. Per contra Ld. AR appearing for and on behalf of the assessee has placed on record of this tribunal a paper book containing pages from 1 to 41 in support of defence of Page 8 of 12. It was also submitted that form no: -

10. CCB dated 07.05.2022 was filed on 07.05.2022 and relevant form no: - 10CCB and its ACK are at pages 1 to 8 of the paper book. The Impugned Order should be upheld. The hearing was over and closed.

Page 9 of 12 4.3 We basis records of the case & after hearing & upon examining the rival contentions of the Ld. DR & the Ld. AR canvassed before us, are of the considered opinion that the by “Impugned Intimation Order” the benefit of 80IA 4(i) is denied on the ground that Form 10 CCB was not filed on due date for AY 2021-22. [Page 5 of Impugned Intimation Order][Rs. 10, 29,33,035]. [Total Income was computed at Rs.

10,49,29,280/- after making addition/adjustment of Rs. 10,29,33,035/-] whereas the “Impugned Order” has set aside the “Impugned Intimation Order” giving relief to the assessee. Hence Revenue in Appeal before us on ground specified above. In this factual backdrop we find that Impugned Intimation Order is dated 13.11.2022. The ITR was filed on 09.03.2022. Form 10 CCB was filed on 07.05.2022 [Page 2-8 of PB]. The ACK of Form 10 CCB is dated 07.05.2022 [Page 1 of PB]. Thus we observe and notice that form 10 CCB was finally filed on 07.05.2022 which date is much before Impugned Intimation Order which is dated

AGROH TOLL HIGHWAYS PRIVATE LIMITED A.Y.2021-22 13.11.2022. Therefore it was incumbent upon the CPC to have examined the form 10 CCB which was not done so and Impugned Intimation Order was passed. The Ld. CIT (A) basis reasons given in the Impugned Order has rightly set aside the “Impugned Intimation Order”. The reasons are not contested seriously by the Revenue. Further the issue of submission of form 10 CCB later but before assessment has been held to be a procedure requirement and assessee in such circumstances cannot be denied deduction. In this regard we gainfully refer to the decisions of Hon’ble MP High Court in case of CIT v/s Panamma Chemical Works (2007) 292 ITR 147 (MP) and that of Hon’ble SC in case of CIT v/s GM Knitting Ind P Ltd. (2015) 376 ITR 456(SC). Even ITAT Indore in case of DCIT-4(1) v/s Oddiville Foods and Frozen in ITA No:- 427/Ind/2025 dated 20.03.2026 has taken similar view after following Hon’ble MP High Court Order (Supra) and Hon’ble Supreme Court Order (Supra). 4.4 In view of the above, we dismiss the Revenue’s Appeal. 5 Order Page 11 of 12 AGROH TOLL HIGHWAYS PRIVATE LIMITED - A.Y.2021-22 5.1 In result Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. The Impugned Order is sustained. Order Accordingly. 5.2. The Appeal of Revenue is dismissed. Pronounced in open court on 27.03.2026 Sd/- Sd/- (BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI) (PARESH M JOSHI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER