TAPASH KUMAR SAHA,DARRANG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- MANGALDOI, MANGALDOI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the denial of deduction due to a bona fide error or technical glitch, beyond the assessee's control, was unjustified. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the deduction after verification.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80IE, but due to a technical glitch in the prescribed Form 10CCB, the particulars were entered in the column for Section 80IC. The lower authorities rejected the claim based on this incorrect entry.
What were the issues?
Whether a deduction under Section 80IE can be denied due to a technical glitch in the prescribed form, leading to incorrect entry of particulars.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “GUWAHATI ‘SMC’ BENCH, GAUHATI
Before: Shri Sanjay Garg
order : March 14, 2023 आदेश / ORDER The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 22.12.2021 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. The sole issue involved in this appeal regarding denial of deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80IE of the Act.
The ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee has duly claimed deduction u/s 80IE of the Act. That in the electronic form of return, the column for claim of deduction u/s 80IC and 80IE was same. That the audit report in the shape of Form 10CCB was required to be attached along with return. However, due to technical glitch/error on behalf of the Department, there was no corresponding
Assessment Year: 2018-19 Tapash Kumar Saha column for claiming deduction u/s 80IE of the Act in the prescribed form 10CCB. Therefore, the assessee had to fill in the particulars in the column meant for deduction u/s 80IC. Even in the return of income, the column meant for section 80IC could also be used for claiming deduction u/s 80IE of the Act. The lower authorities finding fault in not filling the proper column in form 10CCB for claiming of deduction u/s 80IE, have rejected the claim of the assessee. The ld. counsel has submitted that since there was no separate column meant for deduction u/s 80IE, in the prescribed form 10CCB, therefore, there was no fault on the part of the assessee, rather, the aforesaid confusion has occurred due to technical glitch on the part of the department itself. The aforesaid contention was brought to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings, but, the Assessing Officer though declined the deduction u/s 80IC, however, did not allow the deduction u/s 80IE, holding that the assessee has not claimed the same in the form 10CCB. The facts and circumstances were also explained before the CIT(A). However, the ld. CIT(A) has mentioned that the assessee could not furnish the proof of aforesaid technical glitch.
In my view, both the lower authorities have acted in an unjust manner. Because of certain bona fide error or technical glitch, if the particulars were entered in a wrong column and the assessee duly explains about that before the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer is duty bound to consider the same for the same and allow the relief if the assessee is otherwise eligible. Rather, a duly has been casted upon the Income Tax Authorities to help the concerned assessees in claiming their eligible benefits, deduction etc. prescribed by law. The denial of deduction because of the aforesaid technical glitch, which was beyond the control of the assessee, in my view, is not justified. In view of this,
Assessment Year: 2018-19 Tapash Kumar Saha the impugned order of the CIT(A) is set aside. The Assessing Officer is directed to allow the deduction u/s 80IE of the Act after verification of the details.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
More judgments on Section 80IE
- ACIT, Guwahati vs Umesh Kumar Beriya, Guwahati, AssamITA 362/GTY/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed27 Aug 2026AY 2022-23
- Nellie Ahmed, Guwahati vs ACIT Cir-2, GuwahatiITA 291/GTY/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed27 Aug 2026AY 2017-18
- Anjali Packaging, Sikkim vs D.C.I.T., Circle - 3(2), Gangtok, SikkimITA 2017/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: Disposed6 Jul 2026AY 2021-2022
- Mahashakti Cements, Guwahati vs Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(1), GuwahatiITA 286/GTY/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed23 Jun 2026AY 2012-13
- Sanjeevani Tea Industries, Assam vs ITO, Ward - 1, Tinsukia, AssamITA 39/GTY/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed7 May 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Pradeep Kumar Behera vs. Superintendent CGST And Central Excise., CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Manas Behera vs. Commissioner, CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pramod Kumar Nayak vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, KendraparaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Nirmal Kumar Sharma S/O Ram Swroop Sharma vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 16 Oct 2026
- Sh Umang Uniyal vs. Commissioner Department Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 16 Oct 2026