AKRY ORGANICS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1)(1), MUMBAI

The learned First Appellate Authority, before embarking upon his analysis, considered it appropriate to set out the chronology of material dates and events which, according to him, had a direct bearing on the controversy. The relevant particulars noted by him were as under:-

Particulars Date Remarks Due date for furnishing RoI 15-03-2022 As per Circular no. 01/2022, in F.No225/49/2021/ITA-ll dated 11-01-2022. 15-02-2022 Due date for filling Form As per Section 80 IA (7) r.w 10CCB the above referred circular Date of filling Original RoI 20-12-2021 No claim was made U/s.80IA Date of filling Form 10CCB 30-03-2022 Date of filling Revised RoI 31-03-2022 Claim was made U/s.80IA

From the aforesaid dates, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) drew certain inferences. He observed that the assessee had not made any claim for deduction under section 80-IA in its original return of income filed under section Akry Organics Pvt.Ltd., 139(1). Such a claim was made only later in the revised return under section 139(5), which, significantly, was filed after the statutory due date for filing of the original return. Furthermore, Form No. 10CCB was admittedly filed only on 30/03/2022, whereas the statutory requirement post amendment obligated its furnishing at least one month prior to the due date of filing of the return of income. 5.1. In this context, the Commissioner (Appeals) adverted to the provisions of section 80AC, which stipulate that no deduction under section 80-IA shall be admissible unless the assessee furnishes its return of income on or before the due date specified under section 139(1). He also referred to section 80-IA(7), which prescribes filing of the audit report in the prescribed form. In his view, since the assessee had sought to make the claim only by way of a revised return under section 139(5), the deduction was not admissible. 5.2. To fortify his conclusion, he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Wipro Limited v. DCIT [(2022) 140 taxmann.com 223 (SC)], wherein their Lordships had distinguished the earlier ruling in G.M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd. [(2015) 376 ITR 456 (SC)], and had expounded the principle in the following words: “The assessee can file a revised return in a case where there is an omission or a wrong statement. But a revised return of income, under section 139(5) cannot be filed, to withdraw the claim and subsequently claiming the carried forward or set-off of any loss. Filing a revised return under section 139(5) and taking a contrary stand and/or claiming the exemption, which was specifically not claimed earlier while filing the original return of income is not permissible. By filing the revised return Akry Organics Pvt.Ltd., of income, the assessee cannot be permitted to substitute the original return of income filed under section 139(1). Therefore, claiming benefit under section 108(8) and furnishing the declaration as required under section 10B(8) in the revised return of income which was much after the due date of filing the original return of income under section 139(1), cannot mean that the assessee has complied with the condition of furnishing the declaration before the due date of filling the original return of income under section 139(1). As observed hereinabove, for claiming the benefit under section 108(8), both the conditions of furnishing the declaration and to file the same before the due date of filing the original return of income are mandatory in nature.”

Relying squarely upon the above pronouncement of the Apex Court, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that a revised return cannot be permitted to substitute the original return of income for the purpose of claiming a deduction that was not claimed originally. On this reasoning, he rejected the assessee’s claim under section 80-IA as made in the revised return.

We have carefully considered the rival submissions advanced by both sides, and have perused the material placed on record. The foundational facts are not in dispute. The assessee’s undertaking situated at Tarapur, Maharashtra, is engaged in the generation of power for captive consumption. The profits and gains derived from such business are squarely eligible for deduction under section 80- IA(4) of the Act. However, it is an admitted position that in the original return of income filed on 20/12/2021, the assessee did not make any claim under section 80-IA.

The learned counsel for the assessee has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in G.M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd. [(2015) 376 ITR 456 (SC)], where it was held that even if the prescribed audit report is furnished during the course of assessment proceedings, it constitutes sufficient compliance. It was submitted that the filing of Form 10CCB is a procedural formality, and a delay therein does not vitiate the substantive right to deduction under section 80-IA. Reliance was further placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Fortuna Foundation Engineers & Consultants (P.) Ltd. [(2017) 9 Taxman 189], wherein it was held that filing of Form 10CCB is directory, not mandatory. Several decisions of the coordinate benches of this Tribunal were also relied upon.

In response, the learned Departmental Representative relied upon the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), and Akry Organics Pvt.Ltd., further drew support from the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in AA520 Veerappampalayam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. v. DCIT (W.P. Nos. 17938 of 2019 & 7038 of 2020, dated 07/04/2021), where it was observed that section 80AC makes it explicit that deductions under Chapter VI-A are admissible only if the return of income is filed within the due date under section 139(1).

Statutory scheme of section 80-IA(7) and its amendment. Prior to the Finance Act, 2020, section 80-IA(7) required that the accounts of the eligible undertaking be audited and that the prescribed report (Form No. 10CCB) be ―furnished along with the return of income.‖ The Finance Act, 2020 modified only the time of furnishing the report is now to be filed ―before the specified date referred to in section 44AB,‖ i.e., one month prior to the due date for filing the return under section 139(1). This change does not recalibrate the substantive eligibility for deduction; it concerns the manner and timing of proof. Properly construed, section 80-IA(7) continues to be a procedural filing requirement designed to ensure verifiability of the claim, whereas the entitlement to deduction flows from section 80-IA(1)/(4) upon satisfaction of the substantive conditions. Read contextually with section 80AC, the statute insists that the return be filed by the section 139(1) due date to preserve Chapter VI-A deductions; section 80-IA(7) then prescribes how the claim is to be evidenced. A shortfall in timing of the audit report—if cured within the statutory framework (particularly when the report Akry Organics Pvt.Ltd., precedes a valid revised return under section 139(5))—is a curable procedural defect, not a forfeiture of the underlying right. This construction avoids elevating form over substance and aligns with the computation-mechanics character of Chapter VI-A deductions.

Purpose of the 2020 amendment: Memorandum and its legal effect. The Memorandum to the Finance Bill, 2020 makes the legislative purpose explicit: the preponement of audit-report filing was introduced to facilitate pre-filling and e-processing, not to create a draconian ground for denial of otherwise valid deductions. The relevant extract reads: “Rationalisation of provisions relating to tax audit in certain cases. Further, to enable pre-filling of returns in case of persons having income from business or profession, it is required that the tax audit report may be furnished by the said assessees at least one month prior to the due date of filing of return of income. This requires amendments in all the sections of the Act which mandates filing of audit report along with the return of income or by the due date of filing of return of income. Thus, provisions of section 10, section 104, section 124, section 324B, section 33AB, section 33ABA, section 35D, section 338, section 4448, section 44DA, section 508, section 80-IA, section 80-IB, section 80JJAA, section 92F, section 115JB, section 115JC and section 115VW of the Act are proposed to be amended accordingly. These amendments will take effect from 1st April, 2020 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2020-21 and subsequent assessment years. [Clauses 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 23, 24, 26, 35, 37, 39, 45, 56, 57, 63 & 66].” 12.1. Legally, two consequences follow. First, the nature of the requirement: the amendment is facilitative and administrative; it does not impose a new condition precedent Akry Organics Pvt.Ltd., that extinguishes the deduction for a venial delay where the report is nevertheless on record before the assessee’s operative return. Second, harmonious construction with section 139(5): when an assessee discovers an omission and files a revised return within time, the revised return substitutes the original and becomes the return in the eye of law. If, by that date, the Form 10CCB already stands uploaded, the requirement of section 80-IA(7) is satisfied vis- à-vis the return that now governs the assessment. To hold otherwise would convert a workflow-oriented amendment meant for pre-filling into a substantive disqualification— something the Memorandum does not countenance.

The scheme of section 139(5) deserves careful consideration. The provision enables an assessee, who having furnished a return under section 139(1), subsequently discovers any omission or wrong statement therein, to furnish a revised return at any time before three months prior to the end of the relevant assessment year or before completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier. The effect of this statutory provision is that once such a revised return is filed within the prescribed time, it substitutes the original return and assumes the position of the operative return for all purposes under the Act. It is not to be regarded as a mere appendage or supplement to the original return, but as a complete and valid return in its own right. 13.1.The rationale underlying this framework is that the Act itself contemplates that errors or omissions may occur at the stage of filing the original return and therefore grants the Akry Organics Pvt.Ltd., assessee a statutory opportunity to rectify the same. Thus, the revised return, once validly filed, effaces the defect in the original return and stands on the same footing as if the claim or correction made therein had been originally included. 13.2. In the present case, the revised return filed by the assessee on 31/03/2022 was within the statutory time frame. Further, the audit report in Form No. 10CCB had already been uploaded on 30/03/2022, i.e. prior to the filing of the revised return. Therefore, when the revised return was filed, it carried with it not only the claim for deduction under section 80-IA but also the supporting audit report as required under section 80-IA(7). In such circumstances, the omission in the original return stands duly cured by the revised return, and the assessee cannot be denied its substantive right of deduction merely on the basis of a technical delay in filing the audit report earlier.

As regards the reliance placed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Wipro Limited v. DCIT [(2022) 140 taxmann.com 223 (SC)], it must be noted that the case pertained to section 10B(8), an exemption provision under Chapter III. That provision mandated compliance with two conditions, first, furnishing a declaration before the Assessing Officer; and second, doing so before the due date prescribed under section 139(1). The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that both the conditions were mandatory and could not be bifurcated into ―mandatory‖ and ―directory.‖ The Court further clarified that a revised return under section 139(5)

The distinction, however, between Wipro Limited and the present case is stark and material. The assessee before us has not sought to alter the character of its return or transform its tax position fundamentally. Instead, it has made a claim for deduction under Chapter VI-A in a revised return, supported by Form No. 10CCB filed just prior thereto. Unlike section 10B(8), there is no stipulation in section 80-IA requiring a declaration to be filed before the Assessing Officer by the due date, failing which the right itself stands forfeited. The amended section 80-IA(7), which requires pre-filing of Form No. 10CCB, is procedural intended to advance administrative efficiency and cannot be equated with exemption provisions in Chapter III which, as settled jurisprudence teaches, warrant strict and literal compliance. 15.1. This position is further confirmed by the following categorical observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Wipro Limited itself:

In the light of this authoritative pronouncement, we are unable to endorse the reliance placed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on Wipro Limited (supra). That decision dealt exclusively with section 10B(8) and cannot be stretched to govern cases involving deductions under Chapter VI-A. In the present matter, the assessee has made its claim under section 80-IA(4) through a revised return filed under section 139(5) within the permissible time and, crucially, had uploaded Form No. 10CCB prior to such revised return. By operation of law, the revised return substitutes the original return; the assessee must therefore be regarded as having complied with the statutory condition. In our considered view, Akry Organics Pvt.Ltd., this constitutes sufficient and substantial compliance with the requirements of section 80-IA(7).

We accordingly, hold that the assessee’s claim for deduction under section 80-IA(4) cannot be denied merely on the technical ground of delayed uploading of Form No. 10CCB. The substantive right to deduction once the form has been filed prior to the revised return and well before the commencement of assessment proceedings must be preserved.

In the result, we allow the claim of the assessee for deduction under section 80-IA(4) to the extent of ₹17,40,75,413/-, as made in the revised return of income. The appeal of the assessee is, therefore, allowed in its entirety. Order pronounced on 4th September, 2025.