SATYEN VIJAY KOTHARI,MUMBAI vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-3, AHMEDABAD

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member And Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं /ITA No.1253/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2020-21 Satyen Vijay Kothari, PCIT, 25, Silversands Society, बनाम/ Ahmedabad-3 v/s. Juhu Tara Road, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400049 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AEHPK9483J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S. N. Soparkar, AR Revenue by : Shri Rajneesh Yadav, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 29/07/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 31/07/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the revision order passed by the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. PCIT’] dated 28/03/2025 u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is in the business of generation of electricity and has installed power plants at five places. The assessee claimed exemption/s 80-IA of the Income Tax Act in respect of all the five power plants, which was granted by the Assessing Officer (in short “the AO”). Subsequently, the Ld. PCIT exercised his revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and observed that as per the settled law, the assessee was supposed to maintain separate accounts

for each of the unit/power plant and should have claimed deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act separately, for each of the unit/power plant. However, the assessee had not maintained separate accounts for each of the unit/power plant, rather, had presented consolidated accounts of all the units. He, therefore, held that the AO was not justified in allowing deduction to the assessee u/s 80-IA of the Act in respect of all these units, as the eligibility of each unit has to be examined separately. He, therefore, observed that the assessment order passed by the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue on the ground that the assessee had claimed deduction u/s. 80-IA of the Act without compliance of the mandatory requirement of law in filing of separate Form 10CCB for each unit. He, accordingly, set-aside the impugned assessment order passed by the AO and restored the matter to the file of the AO for de-novo assessment on this issue. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, before us, has submitted that though the Ld. PCIT has restored the matter to the AO for de-novo assessment, however, there is no mention in the order that the assessee should be given liberty to file separate Form 10CCB for each of the unit to claim deduction u/s 80-IA accordingly. 4. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, has submitted that since the assessee has not complied with the mandatory requirement of law by filing separate 10CCB Form relating to each of the unit, therefore, the assessee has missed the deadline for compliance of the aforesaid requirement and, hence, the assessee cannot be allowed at this stage to file separate Form 10CCG for each of the unit.

आदेश की "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ" / The Appellant 2. ""थ" / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु" / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु" अपील ( ) / The CIT(A)-(NFAC) 5. िवभागीय "ितिनिध आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद /DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad. , , 6. गाड" फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt.