Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Before: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha
O R D E R
PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Both the appeals filed by the assessee are directed against different orders of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Coimbatore dated 31.08.2020 and 28.09.2020 relevant to the assessment year 2017-18.
The appellate order passed by the ld. CIT(A) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act”] dated 31.08.2020 has not been digitally signed and thereby there was a mistake apparent on record. The above mistake was suo moto rectified by the ld. CIT(A) vide order under section 154 of the Act dated 28.09.2020 followed by order under section 250 of the Act. Since the assessee has preferred an appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 31.08.2020, the appeal filed by the assessee become infructuous and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. I.T.A. No. 865/Chny/2020
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 31.10.2017 declaring the income of ₹.18,47,62,152/-. The return filed by the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Act by the CPC, Bengaluru dated 16.03.2019 by making various disallowances. The CPC, Bengaluru disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80IA of the Act amounting to ₹.2,37,08,703/- for non-filing of Form 10CCB along with the return of income. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowance by observing as under: “10. What is important is that CPC made the disallowance while processing u/s 143(1), when it found that the Form 10CCB which is mandatorily required to be filed along with the R/I within the due date was not seen filed within the due date. There was an incorrect claim made by the assessee in the Revised R/I. Disallowance u/s 143(1) is different from the disallowance u/s 143(3). Only arithmetical errors and other technical violations can be disallowed by the AO, CPC. They will not go into the conditions stipulated under the Act, for claiming deduction u/s 80IA. As you can see in the new amendments brought in from AY 2017-18 as well as Rule 12, the AO CPC can automatically disallow deduction u/s 80IA, if it is found that Form 10CCB was not filed with the Original Return of Income. Here it is pertinent to note that it is the Original Return of Income which was scrutinised u/s 143(3). It is not the same return of income which was the subject matter of 143(1) and 143(3) assessments. When the Original return of income was scrutinised, the Revised Return of Income was processed u/s 143(1). Why the CPC disallowed the claim is due to the fact that assessee ought not have made the claim in the Revised Return of Income, when the Form 10CCB was not filed along with Original Return of Income. As per sec 143(1)(ii), there is an incorrect claim in the Revised R/I, apparent on the information in the R/I. Hence CPC's action of disallowing deduction claimed u/s 80IA for non filing of 10CCB along with the Original Return of Income and making an incorrect claim in the Revised Return of Income, when it ought to have disallowed its claim under sec 80IA in the Revised Return of Income is correct, and no interference is warranted on this issue. The disallowance amounting to Rs 2,37,08,703 on claim u/s 80IA stands upheld.”
On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that though the assessee has not submitted Form 10CCB along with return of income, but it was submitted before concluding the assessment order and relied on the decision in the case of CIT v. G.M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd. 376 ITR 456 (SC) besides relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. AKS Alloys (P.) Ltd. 18 taxmann.com 25 (Mad) and decision of the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal in the case of Roopa Steam Calendering Works v. DCIT in dated 18.08.2022.
On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order passed by the ld. CIT(A).
We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. In this case, the assessee filed the audit report in Form 10CCB for claiming deduction under section 80IA of the Act on 13.11.2017. The processing of return under section 143(1) of the Act was done by the CPC, Bengaluru and issued intimation dated 16.03.2019, which is much after the filing of audit report. This being the case, this issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. AKS Alloys (P.) Ltd. (supra), which was duly affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. G.M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd., wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that even though necessary certificate in Form 10CCB has to be filed along with the return of income, but, even if the same was filed before the final order of assessment was made, the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under section 80IB of the Act. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that once the assessee has filed an audit report in Form 10CCB on 13.11.2017 and processing of return under section 143(1) of the Act was done by the CPC, Bengaluru on 16.03.2019, which is an event much after, the assessee is fully entitled to claim deduction under section 80IA of the Act. Accordingly, we set aside the orders of authorities below on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of deduction under section 80IA of the Act. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed.
In the result, appeal in is allowed.
Order pronounced on 21st December, 2022 at Chennai.