AMRIK SINGH & SONS CRANE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. MUM-C-(101)(1), MUMBAI

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 06.11.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereafter referred as Ld. CIT(A)] for Assessment Year 2022-23.

The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of crane hiring and generation and distribution of power through wind energy units. The assessee filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs.9,65,31,220/- after claiming deduction of Rs.12,37,24,082/- u/s 80IA(4)(iv) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to substantiate the claim of deduction. The Assessing Officer noticed that though the assessee had claimed deduction u/s 80IA, it had furnished Form No.10CCC on 03.10.2022 instead of Form No.10CCB prescribed under section 80IA(7) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee explained that Form No.10CCC had been uploaded inadvertently and by mistake. It was further submitted that the assessee had subsequently uploaded the correct Form No.10CCB on 09.02.2024 before completion of assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer, however, held that furnishing of audit report in Form No.10CCB within the prescribed time was a mandatory condition and since the assessee had filed an incorrect form, the claim of deduction was not

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer holding that the assessee had not furnished the prescribed audit report in Form No.10CCB within the due date contemplated under section 80IA(7) of the Act and therefore the assessee was not entitled to deduction.

Before us, the Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that the assessee had uploaded an audit report within the prescribed due date though in a wrong form. It was submitted that the mistake was purely technical and procedural in nature. The assessee subsequently furnished the correct Form No.10CCB on 09.02.2024 before completion of the assessment proceedings. The Ld. AR submitted that denial of deduction u/s 80IA solely on account of filing of a wrong form would defeat the substantive benefit intended by the legislature. Reliance was placed on the decisions in CIT vs. G.M. Knitting Industries Pvt. Ltd. (376 ITR 456) (SC), CIT vs. ACE Multitaxes Systems Pvt. Ltd. (317 ITR 207) (Kar.), Sutures India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (125 taxmann.com 226) (Kar.), Murali Export House vs. CIT (238 ITR 257) (Cal.), CBDT Circular No.14 (XL-35) dated 11.04.1955 and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Wipro Ltd. reported in 140 taxmann.com 223. It was contended that procedural defects cannot defeat substantive claims and once the correct audit report has been furnished before completion of assessment, the deduction cannot be denied merely on technical considerations.

The Ld. Departmental Representative relied upon the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that section 80IA(7) specifically mandates furnishing of audit report in Form No.10CCB and therefore the authorities below were justified in denying the deduction.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. G.M. Knitting Industries Pvt. Ltd. (376 ITR 456) held that filing of the prescribed audit report before completion of assessment constitutes sufficient compliance and deduction cannot be denied merely because the report was not filed in the prescribed manner along with the return of income. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. ACE Multitaxes Systems Pvt. Ltd. (317 ITR 207) held that the requirement relating to filing of audit report is directory in nature and substantive benefits cannot be denied on account of procedural lapses. Similar view has been taken in the decisions of Sutures India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (125 taxmann.com 226) and Murali Export House vs. CIT (238 ITR 257), wherein it has been held that procedural requirements should not override legitimate deductions otherwise available under the Act.

In the present case, the deduction has been denied solely because the assessee initially uploaded Form No.10CCC instead of Form No.10CCB. The authorities below have not examined whether the assessee otherwise satisfies the conditions prescribed under section 80IA(4)(iv). The eligibility of the undertaking, correctness of the computation of deduction and contents of the subsequently furnished Form No.10CCB have not been examined on merits. In our considered 4

Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to verify the Form No.10CCB furnished by the assessee and examine whether the assessee fulfils the conditions prescribed under section 80IA(4)(iv) and section 80IA(7) of the Act. If upon such verification the assessee is found eligible, the deduction claimed u/s 80IA shall be allowed in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to furnish all necessary documents and evidences in support of its claim. Needless to say, adequate opportunity of being heard shall be granted to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.