TASKUS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

The Learne subject adjus Centralised P 6. Without p satisfying the 6.1. The Lear CPC denied section 80JJA giving the pr section 143(1 justice. 6.2. Without p failed to appr section 143(1 body cannot a 6.3. Without p has failed to in section 14 clause under adduce any re 6.4. Without p invoking sec application of as much ther apparent from 6.5. Without p proposing to section 143(1 Assessment Y 6.6. Without p denying the section 80JJA CPC proposed of Rs.9,29,03, 7. As regards 7.1. The Lea Rs.35,63,056 M/s ITA ed Addl./ JCIT (A) has failed to appreciat tment carried out by CPC being in contra Processing of Returns Scheme, 2011. rejudice to the above, adjustment mad e conditions of Section 143(1): rned Addl./ JCIT (A) has failed to appr the entire deduction of Rs.14,47,95,160 AA by purportedly invoking section 80A roposition notice as mandated in first p 1)(a) thereby offending the principles o prejudice to the above, the lower author reciate that there is a violation of second 1)(a) for the reason that CPC being an address the grievance of the appellants. prejudice to the above, the Learned Addl. appreciate that the adjustment made by 3(1) intimation does not specify the cla r which such adjustment is made and reasons for making such adjustment. prejudice to the above, the CPC is not ju ction 143(1)(ii) when the pre-condi f the said clause did not exist in the insta re was no incorrect claim made in return m any information in the return. prejudice to the above, the CPC is not ju make a disallowance of Rs.9,29,03,60 1)(a)(ii) by considering Form 10DA for a Year. prejudice to the above, the CPC is not ju entire claim of Rs.14,47,95,160/- ma AA vide intimation under section 143(1), d under section 143(1)(a)(ii) to make a dis ,608/-. s levy of interest: arned CPC is not justified in levying i 6/- under section 234B. s Taskus India Pvt. Ltd. 3 A No. 2826/MUM/2025 te that the avention of de without reciate the 0/- under AC without proviso to of natural rities have proviso to inanimate ./ JCIT (A) y the CPC use/ sub- does not ustified in itions for ant case in n, which is ustified in 8/- under a different ustified in ade under when the allowance interest of 7.2. The Lear 21,75,197/- [ 7.3. The Lear interests, whe 2. Briefly stated, fa the assessee was eng year under considera of income declaring claiming deduction o The ld. Central Pro income and propose 23.12.2022 passed u short the Act) by t claimed in ITR vis-à 10DA of the immed against such an a rectification applicati case was selected fo was passed u/s. 143 3. Aggrieved by th challenged it before against intimation u the premise that int order passed u/s. relevant extract of the M/s ITA rned CPC is not justified in levying inter [25,69,652-3,94,455) under section 234C. rned CPC is not justified in levying the en the impugned adjustment is not tenabl acts of the case are that during gaged in the business of BPO s ation A.Y. 2022-23, the assessee g total income at Rs. 50,07 of Rs. 14,47,95,160/- u/s. 80J cessing Centre(CPC) processed d to make adjustment by way u/s. 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Income-t taking into account the amoun à-vis amount certified by tax a diately previous year. Despite f adjustment made by the C ion, the assessee could not suc r scrutiny under CASS and as (3) r.w.s. 144B on 23.09.2023. his adjustment made by the CP e the CIT(A) who held that th /s. 143(1) dated 16.03.2023 is timation merges with subsequ 143(3) r.w.s. 144B dated 23 e CIT(A)’s order is as under:- s Taskus India Pvt. Ltd. 4 A No. 2826/MUM/2025 rest of Rs. . aforesaid le. g relevant period services. For the e filed its return ,07,258/- after JJAA of the Act. d the return of y of order dated tax Act,1961( In nt of deduction auditor in Form filing objections CPC and filing cceed. Later, the ssessment order PC, the assessee he appeal filed infructuous on uent assessment 3.09.2023. The “4. It is seen the I.T. Act, appellant has merged in the 144B of the income dete 64,55,02,420 in the said available to th the said ass present appea appellant in appellant has assessment o 5. To conclud the subseque discussed in against the a 16.03.2023, i appeal is dism 4. We have carefu authorities, perused the submissions adv Revenue. The appel numbered 1 to 7. G authority of the Cen adjustment under Se of deduction amount by reference to Form No. 7 is consequent under Sections 234B 4.1 It is observed proposed an adjust M/s ITA n from the above that the intimation u/s , 1961 dated 16.03.2023, against w s filed the present appeal, has been sub e subsequent assessment order u/s 143 I.T. Act, 1961 dated 07.03.2024, and ermined in the 143(1) intimation 0/- has been determined as total income assessment order also. The remedi he appellant was, to have filed an appe sessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B al has become infructuous. It is submitt its response made on 20.05.2024 s filed an appeal on 01.05.2024 agains order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B dated 07.03 e, in view of the merger of intimation u/s ent assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. detail above, the present appeal of the addition made in the intimation u/s 143 is treated as infructuous. Accordingly, th missed.” ully examined the orders passe the material placed on record, anced on behalf of the appellan llant has raised multiple grou Grounds Nos. 1 to 6 pertain to ntralized Processing Centre (CP ection 143(1) of the Act by disa ting to ₹14,47,95,160/- under S m 10DA for a different assessmen tial in nature and relates to i B and 234C of the Act. that in the present case, th tment under Section 143(1)(a) s Taskus India Pvt. Ltd. 5 A No. 2826/MUM/2025 s 143(1) of which the bsequently 3(3) r.w.s. d the total as Rs. assessed ial option al against B, as the ted by the that the t the said .2024. s 143(1) in 144B, as appellant 3(1) dated he present ed by the lower and considered nt as well as the unds of appeal, o the scope and PC) to effect an allowing a claim Section 80JJAA, nt year. Ground nterest charged he CPC initially )(ii) of the Act, disallowing a sum 80JJAA, ostensibly b different assessment under Section 143(1) . The appellant conte appeal as infructuou Section 143(1) had m passed. 4.2 We find merit representative of th judicially settled, do question has not bee case, the issue relati examined in the regu basis to conclude subsequent assessme 4.3 It is further note on 23.12.2022. The Section 80JJAA(2)(c) the filing of the retur reasons for disallow adjustment was mad taking the view that prescribed under Sec M/s ITA of ₹9,29,03,608/- claimed based on a comparison with cla year. Subsequently, the final i disallowed the entire claim of ₹ ended that the ld. CIT(A) erred in us on the premise that the in merged with the assessment ord in the submission of the lear e appellant that the doctrine oes not operate where the su en dealt with in the later order ng to the claim under Section 8 ular assessment order. Accordin that the intimation stood me ent order. ed that the return of income wa audit report in Form 10DA, as , was filed on 19.12.2022, fou rn. While the CPC has not expr wance of the deduction, it ap de by invoking clause (v) of Se t the return was not filed withi ction 139(1) read with Section 80 s Taskus India Pvt. Ltd. 6 A No. 2826/MUM/2025 under Section aims made in a intimation order ₹14,47,95,160/- n dismissing the ntimation under er subsequently rned authorised e of merger, as bject matter in r. In the instant 80JJAA was not ngly, there is no erged with the as filed belatedly required under ur days prior to ressly stated the ppears that the ection 143(1)(a), in the due date 0AC.

4 The appellant accounts and obta corresponding delay emphasized that the time of processing t prejudice was cause further submitted t avoidable and occu appellant’s control. 4.5 Upon perusal o has not adjudicated the audit report, nor in relation to the app under Section 143(1 issues go to the root 5 In the circums consider it appropria and remand the m consideration. The CI the claim for deducti filing of the audit rep Section 143(1), and opportunity of hearin 6 In view of the a restored for adjudicat M/s ITA submitted that the delay in aining the statutory audit in filing the audit report. H audit report was nevertheless the return under Section 143( ed to the Revenue by the bela that the delay was neither urred due to genuine reason of the appellate order, we find on the issue of condonation o r has he addressed the specific plicability and scope of adjustme 1) of the Act. In our consider of the matter and require prope stances, and in the interest ate to set aside the impugned matter to the file of the CIT(A IT(A) shall examine the issues r ion under Section 80JJAA, the port, and the validity of the ad shall dispose of the appeal afte ng to the appellant. above, the grounds raised by th tion before the CIT(A). s Taskus India Pvt. Ltd. 7 A No. 2826/MUM/2025 n finalizing the resulted in a However, it was available at the 1), and that no ated filing. It is deliberate nor ns beyond the that the CIT(A) of delay in filing grounds raised ents permissible red view, these r adjudication. of justice, we appellate order A) for de novo raised, including alleged delay in djustment under er affording due he appellant are 7 In the result, statistical purposes. Order pronoun (SANDEEP G JUDICIAL M Mumbai; Dated: 30/06/2025 Dragon Legal/Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.