KISANMITRA WAREHOUSING PVT. LTD.,LATUR vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.64/PUN/2025 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2022-23 Kisanmitra Warehousing Vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru. Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.B-113, 114, 115, 117, Additional MIDC, Latur- 413531. PAN : AAECK0739A Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Subham Rathi (Virtual) Revenue by : Shri Bharat Andhale (Virtual) Date of hearing : 19.02.2026 Date of pronouncement : 27.04.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 18.11.2024 passed by Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)- 4, Chennai [‘Ld. CIT(A)’] for the assessment year 2022-23. 2. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. ADDITION IN THE INTIMATION U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT 1.1 The Learned Addl/JCIT (A)-4, Chennai [‘the Ld. JCIT(A)’] has erred in confirming the jurisdiction of The Learned Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru, to make the

2 ITA No.64/PUN/2025 adjustment in the intimation u/s 143(1) with respect to deduction claimed in return of income u/s 80IB of the Act. 1.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, adjustment of disallowing the deduction claimed u/s 80IB in the return of income is beyond the scope of section 143(1) and therefore, the disallowance made is illegal and invalid. 1.3 In the above circumstances, it is humbly prayed to set aside the order passed by the Ld. JCIT(A). 2. THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION OF RS.4,13,90,997/- U/S 80 – IB OF THE ACT 2.1 The Ld. JCIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of the deduction claimed in return of income filed u/s 139(1) of the Act of Rs.4,13,90,997/- u/s 80-IB of the Act. 2.2 The Ld. JCIT(A) has erred in not considering the submission that filing of Form 10CCB is directory in nature and no mandatory. 2.3 On the facts and circumstances of the case and on merits, such disallowance is bad, illegal and deserves to be deleted. 3. LEAVE The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in integrated business of handling, storage and transportation of food-grains. The assessee company filed its return of income u/s 139(1) of the IT Act on 18.10.2022 declaring an income of Rs.2,55,97,550/- after claiming deduction u/s 80IB(11A) of the IT Act of Rs.4,13,90,997/-. The Tax Audit Report u/s 44AB of the IT Act for the year under consideration was filed on 30.09.2022, however Form 10CCB was filed on 18.10.2022

3 ITA No.64/PUN/2025 i.e. with a delay of 11 days since the extended due date for filing of Form 10CCB was 07.10.2022. Subsequently, the return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the IT Act by CPC on 16.03.2023 wherein deduction of Rs.4,13,90,997/- claimed u/s 80IB(11A) of the IT Act was disallowed on the ground of delayed filing of Form 10CCB. 4. Being aggrieved with the above intimation order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). After considering the reply and submissions of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance of Rs.4,13,90,997/- claimed u/s 80IB(11A) of the Act by relying on judgement passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Wipro Ltd. and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the side and perused the material available on record including the paper book and case laws furnished by the assessee. In this regard, we find that Form 10CCB was prepared on 30.09.2022, however could not be uploaded on income tax portal on 07.10.2022 which was the extended due date due to technical glitches as claimed by the

4 ITA No.64/PUN/2025 assessee, however the same was uploaded on 18.10.2022. We further find that when the return of income was uploaded on portal i.e. on 18.10.2022, Form 10CCB was also uploaded along with the above return of income. Subsequently on 16.03.2023, the CPC processed the return u/s 143(1) of the IT Act and disallowed the deduction u/s 80IB(11A) of the IT Act since Form 10CCB u/s 80IA(7) r.w.s. 44AB of the IT Act was filed/uploaded on 18.10.2022 i.e. with a delay of 11 days. 7. In this regard, it was the contention of Ld. DR that the order passed by the subordinate authorities is correct. It was also contended that a coordinate bench of this Tribunal has already dismissed the appeal of the assessee for earlier two years involving the same issue. Therefore, it was requested to confirm the order passed by Ld. CIT(A). 8. In this regard, it was the contention of Ld. Counsel of the assessee that on 16.03.2023 i.e. on the date of processing of impugned income tax return, Form 10CCB was very much available before CPC therefore, the disallowance u/s 80IB(11A) was not warranted. With regard to the contention of Ld. DR regarding adverse decision passed in the case of assessee itself for earlier

5 ITA No.64/PUN/2025 years, it was the contention of Ld. Counsel of the assessee that in earlier two years Form 10CCB was furnished subsequent to processing of income tax return by CPC, therefore, the facts of earlier two years are different and not applicable to the instant case in hand. 9. Apart from above, it was also the contention of Ld. Counsel of the assessee that under identical facts a coordinate bench of this Tribunal has already allowed deduction u/s 80IA of the IT Act by allowing the appeal filed by the assessee wherein Form 10CCB was filed with nominal delay of 24 days and the return of income was processed subsequent to filing of Form 10CCB. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision of coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Desai Infra Projects (I) Private Limited vs. CIT in ITA No.1852/PUN/2024 dated 30.12.2024 wherein the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee by observing as under :- “6. We have heard rival submissions made by both the sides and perused the material available on record. We find the assessee in it’s return of income had claimed deduction of Rs.3,42,22,760/- u/sec.80IA(4)(i) of the Act, which was denied by the CPC in the intimation passed u/sec.143(1) of the Act. We find the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the arguments advanced by the assessee and dismissed the appeal, the reasons of which, have already reproduced in the preceding

6 ITA No.64/PUN/2025 paragraphs. It is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Assessee that the CPC does not have any power to deny the claim of deduction u/sec.80IA(4) while processing the return u/sec.143(1). It is also his argument that since the assessee has filed the audit report before the processing of the return and since filing of audit report is directory and not mandatory, therefore, the deduction should not have been denied. 6.1. We find some force in the above arguments of the Learned Counsel for the Assessee. Admittedly, in the instant case, the assessee has filed audit report in Form-10CCB on 31.10.2022 and the CPC has processed the return of income on 16.03.2023. It is also an admitted fact that as per the intimation u/sec.143(1), the extended due date for filing of the return for the assessment year 2022-2023 is 07.11.2022. 6.2. We find an identical issue had come-up before the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Natesan Precision Components Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT in ITA.No.1397/Chny/2024, order dated 09.08.2024 for the assessment year 2018-2019, wherein it has been held that a claim of deduction u/sec.80IA(4) cannot be denied merely because the audit report in Form-10CCB was filed belatedly i.e., not along with the return of income. The relevant observations of the Tribunal are as under : “8. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We find that this was the 8th year of claiming deduction u/s.80IA of the Act and in earlier year assessee was granted such deduction; and in the relevant AY, the CPC denied the deduction only on the ground that Audit Report/ Form No.10CCB was belatedly e-filed i.e, not along with the return of income. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the CPC by holding that the assessee ought to have filed Form No.10CCB on the due date, which requirement of law, we note came w.e.f. 01.04.2020 and is not applicable for AY 2017-18. Having said so, we note that the assessee had e-filed Form No.10CCB before the CPC had processed the return of income u/s 143(1) of the Act; and therefore, the deduction claimed ought to have been allowed as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GM Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd., (supra), wherein the Apex Court had an occasion to examine the action of Bombay High Court holding that if Form 3AA is filed before the assessment proceedings culminated, then additional depreciation shall be allowed and such a claim should not be denied only because assessee did not furnish Form 3AA along with return of income. And the Hon’ble Apex Court, affirmed the action of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay as well as tagged

7 ITA No.64/PUN/2025 along matter wherein Revenue challenged the action of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in AKS Alloys Pvt. Ltd (supra) and the Civil Appeal of department was dismissed, which means the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court has been affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court, and is binding precedent that if assessee had filed the Form 10CCB before the assessment proceedings culminate, then the deduction claimed u/s.80IB ought not to be denied on the reason that assessee did not file Form 10CCB along with Return of Income (RoI). We also note the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in M/s.Wipro Ltd. (supra) was in the context of that assessee’s [Wipro] claim of exemption under Chapter III, in contra-distinction to the claim raised by the present assessee under Chapter VI-A. And it would be gainful to reproduce the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s observation in M/s.Wipro Ltd., wherein in the distinction in the claim made for exemption under Chapter-III and deduction claimed under Chapter VI was noted as under : “11. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this Court in the case of G.M. Knitting Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee is concerned, Section 10B (8) is an exemption provision which cannot be compared with claiming an additional depreciation under section 32(1) (ii-a) of the Act. As per the settled position of law, an assessee claiming exemption has to strictly and literally comply with the exemption provisions. Therefore, the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand, while considering the exemption provisions. Even otherwise, Chapter III and Chapter VIA of the Act operate in different realms and principles of Chapter III, which deals with "incomes which do not Form a part of total income", cannot be equated with mechanism provided for deductions in Chapter VIA, which deals with "deductions to made in computing total income". Therefore, none of the decisions which are relied upon on behalf of the assessee on interpretation of Chapter VIA shall be applicable while considering the claim under Section 10B (8) of the IT Act.[emphasis given by us]” 9. In the light of the discussion, and taking note that assessee had e-filed the audit report in Form 10CCB on 30.03.2019 and processing by CPC u/s.143(1) of the Act took place only on 12.01.2020, which is an event much after the assessee had e-filed the Form 10CCB, therefore, the claim of deduction ought to have been granted especially when assessee was granted such a deduction for the earlier 5 years. Therefore, we set-aside the

8 ITA No.64/PUN/2025 impugned order of Ld.CIT(A)/JCIT(A) and direct the AO to allow the claim of deduction u/s.80IA of the Act. 10. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.” 6.3. We find the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Tarasafe International (P.) Ltd., vs. DDIT, CPC (supra) after considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Wipro Ltd., (supra), has held that when the audit report is filed before the final order of assessment, the assessee was entitled to claim deduction under section 80JJAA. The relevant observations of the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal from para-2 onwards read as under : “2. The short issue involved in this appeal is as to whether the late filing of audit report in Form 10DA would disentitle the assessee from claiming deduction u/s.80JJAA of the Act, when the said Form 100A was available to the Ld. AO at the time of assessment proceedings. The assessee in this case filed the Form 100A on 27.10.2023 as against the due date of 30.09.2023 but, the same was available to the AO at the time of processing the return of income as the notice u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Act was issued by the CPC to the assessee on 23.11.2023. 3. The issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V. G. M Knitting bahotries (P) Ltd. (2016/12 SCC 272/[2016] 71 taxmann.com 35/376 ITR 456 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, even though it is necessary to file certificate in Form 10CCB along with the return of income, but even if the same has not been filed with the return of income, but the same was filed before the final order of assessment was made, the assessee was entitled to claim deduction u/s. 80-IB of the Act. 4. So far as the reliance of the Id. DR on the another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Wipro Lid 120221 140 taxmann.com 223/288 Tasman 491/446 ITR I (SC) is concerned, it is to be observed that the said case is relating to the claim of exemption u's. 10B falling under Chapter III of the I.T. Act. However, the claim of the assessee in the case in hand is u/s. 80JJAA of the Act under Chapter VIA of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 11 of the judgment in the case of Wipro Lid (supra) has clarified the position that the exemption provisions are to be strictly adhered to whereas the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G. M. Knitting Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is relating to deduction provisions u/s.VA of the Act the relevant para 11 of the order of the Hon'ble

9 ITA No.64/PUN/2025 Supreme Court in the case of Wipro Lad. (supra) is reproduced below : "11. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this court in the case of G. M. Knitting Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee is concerned, section 108(8) is an exemption provision which cannot be compared with claiming an additional depreciation under section 32(1)(ii-a) of the Act. As per the settled position of law, an assessee claiming exemption has to strictly and literally comply with the exemption provisions. Therefore, the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand, while considering the exemption provisions. Even otherwise, Chapter III and Chapter VIA of the Act operate in different realms and principles of Chapter III, which deals with "income which do not Form a part of total income", cannot be equated with mechanism provided for deductions in Chapter VIA, which deals with "deductions to be made in computing total income". Therefore, none of the decisions which are relied upon on behalf of the assessee on interpretation of Chapter VIA shall be applicable while considering the claim under section 10B(8) of the I.T. Act." In view of this, the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G. M. Knitting Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra) the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is, therefore, set aside and the AO is directed to grant deduction to the assessee u/s. 80JJAA of the Act as claimed. The appeal of the assessee stands allowed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed.” 6.4. Since the assessee in the instant case has admittedly filed the audit report in Form-10CCB prior to the processing of the return, therefore, respectfully following the decisions cited (supra), we are of the considered opinion that assessee cannot be denied deduction u/sec.80IA(4) of the Act. Accordingly, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is reversed and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 10. Since the assessee in the instant case has admittedly filed the Form 10CCB on 18.10.2022 i.e. prior to the processing of the return on 16.03.2023, therefore, respectfully following the decision of

10 ITA No.64/PUN/2025 coordinate bench of this Tribunal cited (supra), we are of the considered opinion that assessee cannot be denied deduction u/s 80IB(11A) of the IT Act. Accordingly, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is reversed and the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed. 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on this 27th day of April, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 27th April, 2026. Sujeet/DOC Sujeet Kumar Digitally signed by Sujeet Kumar Sharma Sharma Date: 2026.04.28 12:15:14 आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : +05'30' अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Addl./JCIT(A)-4, Chennai. 4. The Pr.CIT/CIT concerned. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “A” ब�च, 5. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 6. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.