TASA FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BENGALURU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2908/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 September 2026AY 2018-198 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had substantially complied with the law by attaching the scanned copy of Form 10CCB due to technical non-availability. Therefore, the deduction under Section 80IB could not be denied solely on account of this technical shortcoming.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80IB but did not e-file Form 10CCB due to the absence of an online facility. Instead, a scanned copy of the physical form was attached to the tax audit report. The Assessing Officer denied the deduction, and the CIT(A) directed the assessee to file a petition for condonation of delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the denial of deduction under Section 80IB is justified when Form 10CCB was not e-filed due to technical non-availability and a scanned copy was attached to the tax audit report.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80IB,Section 143(1),Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B’’BENCH: BANGALORE

Before: SHRI BALAKRISHNAN S. & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

Hearing: 22.06.2026Pronounced: 07.09.2026

PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Addl/JCIT (A), Ranchi dated 23.10.2025 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1081942737(1) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the assessment year 2018-19.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1 . The orders of the authorities below in so far as they are against the appellant are opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case.

2.

The learned ADDL/JCIT[A], Ranchiis not justified in upholding the Intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act, dated 17/06/2019 determining the total income ofthe appellant at Rs.2,50,06,593/- as against the returned income of

ITA No.2908/Bang/2025 M/s. Tasa Foods Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru Page 2 of 8 Rs.1,55,21,730/- by denying deduction claimed u/s 80IB of Rs. 94,84,865/- under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 3. The learned ADDL/JCIT[A], Ranchi, ought to have allowed the rightful claim u/s 80IB of the Act that was denied on the ground that Form 10CCB was not e-filed, keeping in mind the fact that there was no facility to e-file Form No IOCCB on the e-filing portal at the relevant point of time and hence, the appellant was entitled to claim to deduction claimed under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 4. The learned ADDL/JCIT[A], Ranchi ought to have appreciated that the appellant had filed Form IOCCB within the due date as an Annexure to the e- filed Form 3CA on 28/11/2018, in the absence of an alternative avenue for e- filing the Form No. 10CCB on the e-filing portal and thus, the appellant had complied with the requirement of the provisions of the Act and was entitled to the deduction under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case.

5.

Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver with the Hon'ble CCIT/DG, the appellant denies itself liable to be charged to interest u/s. 234-B and 234-C of the Act, as computed in the intimation u/s. 143[1] of the Act, which under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case deserves to be cancelled.

6.

For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, your appellant humbly prays that the appeal may be allowed and Justice rendered and the appellant may be awarded costs in prosecuting the appeal and also order for the refund of-the institution fees as part of the costs.

3.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacture, processing and sale of fruit products. It is submitted that the assessee company has also set up a manufacturing plant at Chittor in Andhra Pradesh for processing of fruits and vegetables. The assessee company filed its return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act for the AY 2018-19 on 28.11.2018 declaring total income of Rs.1,55,21,730/- after claiming deduction u/s 80IB of the Act amounting to Rs.94,84,865/-. On the very same day i.e. on 28.11.2018, the tax auditor had also uploaded the tax audit report in Form No.3CA and 3CD dated 30.10.2018. The tax auditor also uploaded the Form No.3CEB dated 22.11.2018 being the report in respect of

ITA No.2908/Bang/2025 M/s. Tasa Foods Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru Page 3 of 8 international transactions/specific domestic transactions entered into by the assessee and Form No.29B dated 28.11.2018 being the report u/s 115JB of the Act on the very same day i.e. on 28.11.2018. It is submitted that the assessee’s tax auditor also wanted to e-file Form No.10CCB in the e-filing portal in support of the deduction claimed u/s 80IB of the Act, however, as there was no online Form No.10CCB available in the e-filing portal and hence the tax auditor attached a scanned copy of the physical form no.10CCB dated 30.10.2018 as an attachment to the form no.3CA- 3CD that was uploaded on the e-filing portal.

3.1 After e-filing the return of income for the AY 2018-19, the assessee thereafter received a notice u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act dated 27.02.2019 stating that there was an error warranting adjustment u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act in respect of the claim of deduction under Chapter VI-A Part C as follows: “In Schedule VI-A, under part – C deduction in respect of certain incomes, in serial no.2.h, deduction is claimed under section 80IB without filing the corresponding schedule 80IB/Form 10CCB or Form 10CCB has not been e-filed within the due date – Rs.94,84,865/-.” The assessee company in its response submitted that there was no availability of online Form No.10CCB and hence the physical copy of audit report were scanned and attached to the Form No.3CA – 3CD and uploaded by the tax auditor.

3.2 It is submitted that the CPC without considering the aforesaid bonafide explanation of the assessee with regard to the non-availability of online Form 10CCB proceeded to pass the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 17.06.2019 by denying the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80IB of the Act amounting to Rs.94,84,865/- and accordingly computed the taxable income of

ITA No.2908/Bang/2025 M/s. Tasa Foods Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru Page 4 of 8 the assessee company at Rs.2,50,06,590/- and raised the demand of Rs.42,94,770/-. The assessee had also filed an online request for rectification u/s 154 of the Act on 27/06/2019, however the CPC had passed an order u/s 154 of the Act on 26/07/2019 rejecting the request for rectification made by the assessee by affirming that there is no prima-facie error in the intimation sought to be rectified.

4.

However, aggrieved by the intimation passed u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 17.06.2019, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A)/Addl./JCIT(A).

5.

The ld. Addl/JCIT(A), Ranchi partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by directing the assessee to file a formal petition to the competent authority (jurisdictional CCIT/CIT) for condonation of the delay in the electronic filing of Form No.10CCB explaining the technical non-availability of the Form on the e-filing portal as the cause. The ld. Addl./JCIT(A) also instructed the competent authority to adjudicate the said petition expeditiously and on merits giving due consideration to the assessee’s explanations regarding the non-availability of the online Form No.10CCB facility at the time of filing the return of income.

6.

Again aggrieved by the order of the ld. Addl/JCIT(A), Ranchi dated 23.10.2025, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal.

7.

Before us, the ld. A.R. of the assessee vehemently submitted that it is not a case that no Form 10CCB has been filed by the assessee. In fact, due to non-availability of online form no.10CCB, the assessee was compelled to scan the physical copy of audit report in Form no.10CCB and uploaded in Form no.3CA – 3CD

ITA No.2908/Bang/2025 M/s. Tasa Foods Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru Page 5 of 8 which can be viewed along with report as an attachment and accordingly prayed that the appeal of the assessee may be allowed.

8.

The ld. D.R. on the other hand, vehemently submitted that the ld. Addl/JCIT(A) has rightly directed the assessee to file the formal petition to the competent authority for the condonation of delay in filing the form no.10CCB and accordingly submitted that no prejudice is caused to the assessee. Further, the ld. D.R. submitted that it is well settled legal proposition that deduction is available on complying with certain conditions, those conditions have to be strictly complied with. Lastly the ld. DR by heavily relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import) v. Dilip Kumar and Co. [2018] 272 Taxman 275 vehemently submitted that the incentive provisions like section 80IB of the Act are subjected to strict interpretation and in the present case, as the assessee had not filed the form no.10CCB as required for claiming deduction u/s 80IB of the Act hence the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed.

9.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is an undisputed fact that the audit report in Form no.10CCB was prepared and signed by the auditor on 30/10/2018 i.e. well within the due date of furnishing the return of Income. It is also an undisputed fact that the physical copy of the Form No.10CCB dated 30/10/2018 were also scanned & uploaded by the tax auditor by way of an attachment to the tax audit report filed in form no. 3CA–3CD on 28.11.2018. The contention of the assessee is that the tax auditor wanted to e-file the Form No.10CCB separately on the income tax portal in support of the deduction claimed u/s 80IB of the Act, however, as there was no online Form No.10CCB available in the e-filing portal and hence the tax auditor having no other alternative attached the scanned

ITA No.2908/Bang/2025 M/s. Tasa Foods Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru Page 6 of 8 copy of the physical form no.10CCB dated 30.10.2018 and uploaded the same as an attachment to the tax audit report filed in the form no.3CA-3CD. The Revenue before us, also could not refute the claim of the assessee and also could not brought any evidences/ material in rebuttal to say that the claim of filing the Form No.10CCB as an attachment to the tax audit report in the absence of availability of form No.10CCB online in the e-filing portal are baseless or absurd. Further, on perusal of the order of the ld. Addl/JCIT(A), we observed that the ld. Addl/JCIT(A) after considering the technical constraints reported by the assessee had directed the assessee to file a formal petition to the ld. jurisdictional CCIT/CIT for condonation of delay. We also observed that the ld. Addl/JCIT(A) out of impetuousness even did not hesitate to give instruction to the ld. CCIT/CIT to adjudicate the condonation petition expeditiously after considering the assessee’s explanation. Thus, in our considered opinion, it is not a case of the Revenue that no audit report in Form No.10CCB had been filed by the assessee on or before the due date of furnishing the return. In fact, the assessee had substantially complied with the requirement of law by filing the scanned copy of physical report in form 10CCB in the absence of availability of online form 10CCB.

9.1 Undisputedly, the deduction u/s 80IB of the Act is admissible only if the accounts of the undertaking have been audited by a chartered accountant, and the audit report duly signed and verified by such accountant is furnished in form no.10CCB. The courts have consistently held that even if the audit report is not filed but it is made available to the Assessing Officer before the completion of assessment, the benefit under section 80IB of the Act cannot be denied. Before us, the ld. DR heavily relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import) v. Dilip Kumar and Co. [2018] 272 Taxman 275 and

ITA No.2908/Bang/2025 M/s. Tasa Foods Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru Page 7 of 8 vehemently submitted that the incentive provisions like section 80IB of the Act should be strictly interpreted. However, in the present case, as the audit report in Form no.10CCB was prepared and signed by the auditor on 30/10/2018 i.e. well within the due date of furnishing the return of Income and the physical copy of the Form No.10CCB dated 30/10/2018 were also scanned & uploaded by the tax auditor by way of an attachment to the tax audit report filed in form no. 3CA–3CD on 28.11.2018 & therefore we are of the considered opinion that there was no fault on the part of the assessee company as there was neither any facilities to e-file the form no.10CCB in the e-filing portal nor there was availability of the offline form utility for filing form no.10CCB. Thus, in our considered view, the assessee has complied with the spirit behind the requirement to file the said form 10CCB along with the return of income. We also take note of the fact that the assessee had also e- filed the form no.10CCB on 23/01/2020, once the facility was enabled on the income tax portal. In view of the above, we held that merely because of the technical shortcomings which also cannot be attributed to the assessee company, the deduction claimed u/s 80IB of the Act cannot be denied. Accordingly, we set-aside the order of the ld. Addl/JCIT(A) & direct the AO to allow the deduction u/s 80IB of the Act as claimed by the assessee.

10.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 7th Sept, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Balakrishnan S.) (Keshav Dubey) Accountant Member Judicial Member

Bangalore, Dated 7th Sept, 2026. VG/SPS

ITA No.2908/Bang/2025 M/s. Tasa Foods Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru Page 8 of 8

Copy to:

1.

The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 5 Guard file By order

Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.

More judgments on Section 80IB

All 1,094 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80IB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →