COMET POWER PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, AAYAKAR BHAWAN,MUMBAI

Date of Hearing 22.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 04.11.2025 ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:

These three appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the different impugned orders passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment years 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2019-20.

ITA No. 3321/Mum/2025, A.Y 2019-20

Particulars Date Due date for furnishing RoI 31.10.2019 u/s 139(1) Due date for filling Form 31.10.2019 10CCB Date of filling RoI 26.10.2019 Date of filling form 10CCB 31.01.2020 And also relied upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of Sindhu Resettlement Corporation Ltd. Vs. DCIT in and in the case of Sajay Kukeja Vs. ACIT, 652/Del/2023, for acceptance of his claim.

5. Whereas on the contrary Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities.

Income Tax passed the order dated 29.03.2007 whereby After issuance of the notice the Commissioner of which had been completed by the Assessing Officer was be held that he was fully satisfied that the assessment 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 80-1A 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 80-1A(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 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. Courts taking the same view. The decisions being, CIT We notice that there are other decisions of other 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 80J(6A) which are similar to the provisions of Section High Courts in considering 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 audit report, thereby, holding that the same is not the part of the assessee to file return accompanied by 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. A.N. Arunachalam [1994]208 ITR 481 / 75 Taxman 529 and in CIT v. Jayant Patel [2001] 248 ITR 199/ 117 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.

6. That is also the consistent view of the other High Courts, including the High Court of Bombay in CIT v. Shivanand Electronics [1994] 209 ITR 63 / 75 Taxman 93 (Bom.), apart from Gujarat High Court in Zenith Processing Mills v. CIT [1996] 219 ITR 721 (Guj.) and Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Maholaxmi Rice Factory [2007] 294 ITR 631/ 1.63 Taxman 565 (Punj. & Har).

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.

9. In the light of the above, by virtue of hierarchy of judgements which are against the Revenue, the substantial question of law (1) would not arise at all for consideration."

by the assessee are allowed.

8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

7. Therefore considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case and also keeping in view the decision of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT which also pertains to the same assessment year and thus applying the ratio of the above decision, we held that the filing of audit report in Form No. 10CCB before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act is only directory and not mandatory for the year under consideration.

3320 & 3321/Mum/2025 Comet Power Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. 8. Since apart from aforesaid delay in filing Form No. 10CCB, there is no other allegation by the revenue to deny the deduction claimed u/s 80IA of the Act for the year under consideration. Therefore in view of our above discussion we direct the AO to allow the deduction u/s 80IA of the Act.

Order pronounced in the open court on 04/11/2025