MARIS SPINNERS LIMITED., ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the Order passed bythe CIT(A) vide DIN and Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1073218382(1) dated 13.02.2025. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that assessee filed return of income on 03.11.2022 declaring income of Rs.21,91,05,990/- and claimed deduction under section 80IAC of the Act of Rs.70,25,927/-. Assessee uploaded form 10CCB which was filed on 02.11.2022. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act on 16.03.2023 denying the clam of the assessee observing that Form 10CCB was not filed as per the provisions of the Act. Page 2 of 5 3. Aggrieved from the above processing Order by the CPC, assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The learned CIT(A), after considering the entire submissions and relying on various judgments, he dismissed the appeal without going into the genuineness of the claim of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel reiterated the submissions made before the learned CIT(A) and submitted that as per CBDT Circular No.20/2022, the extended due date for filing return of income under section 139(1), explanation (2)(a) of the Act, due date was extended upto 07.11.2022 for filing return of income for certain assessees and Form 10CCB was filed before filing of return of income which is 02.11.2022. The Form 10CCB was very much available with the Income Tax Department before processing of return of income. Therefore, assessee is eligible for claiming of deduction as decided in the following judgments and these judgments were submitted before the CPC and learned CIT(A). But both the levels have ignored:  Hon'ble ITAT "C" Bench, Kolkata in the case of Hi Tech Systems and Services Ltd., in ITA No.1318/Kol/2024 dated 06/01/2025  Hon'ble ITAT, "A" Bench, Pune in the case of Desai Projects[I]Pvt. Ltd. In ITA No.1852/Pun/2024 dated 30/12/2024  Hon'ble ITAT, "A" Bench, Chennai in the case of Natesan Precision Components Pvt. Ltd., in ITA No.1397/Chny/2024 dated 09/08/2024  Hon'ble ITAT, "G" Bench, Delhi in the case of Anjay Kukreja in ITA No.652/Del/2023 dated 30/01/2024  Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of AKS Alloys Pvt. Ltd reported in 205 Taxman 11 Page 3 of 5 5. On the other hand, the learned DR relied on the Order of CPC and learned CIT(A) and submitted that assessee has not filed Form 10CCB to claim deduction under section 80IA of the Act which is required to be filed one month prior to the filing of appeal under section 139(1) of the Act. However, the assessee has not filed its return of income. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) has rightly decided the issue in favour of the Revenue. He further submitted that none of the authorities below have examined the eligibility of the quantum of deduction claimed by the assessee. 6. Considering the submissions, we noted that the assessee filed its return of income under section 139(1) of the Act as per extended due date on 03.11.2022 and claimed deduction under section 80IA of the Act of Rs.70,25,927/- under section 80IA of the Act and Form 10CCB was filed on 02.11.2022. The return was processed under section 143(1)(a) of the Act on 16.03.2023 but the claim of deduction as claimed by the assessee has been denied and learned CIT(A) has also upheld the Order of the CPC. This issue has been decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Sutures India (P.) Ltd., Vs. CIT reported in [2021] 125 taxmann.com 226 (Karnataka) in which it has been held that the audit report in Form 10CCB for claiming of deduction under section 80IA of the Act could file audit report in Form 10CCB at appellate stage also. The relevant part of the judgement are as under:- 6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Before proceeding further it is apposite to deal with the submission made by learned counsel for the assessee made with regard to deferment of hearing of the appeal. A bench of this court by an order dated 20-11-2018 in view of submission made by learned counsel for the revenue that question of law which would arise for consideration in this appeal has been referred to a larger bench of the Supreme Court, directed that the appeal be listed after disposal of the special leave petition. Thereafter the counsel for the assessee filed an application for modification of the order dated 20-11-2018 on the aforesaid application the following order was passed by this court on 4-12-2020 the relevant extract of which reads as under: "Learned counsel for the assessee submits that by order dated 20-11-2018, the hearing of the appeal was deferred on the ground that the substantial question of law involved in the appeal Page 4 of 5 is pending consideration before the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, it is submitted that the learned counsel for the assessee does not intend to address arguments on the issue which is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it is contended that the appeal may be disposed of as the Assessing Officer has adopted one of the views which is possible and therefore, the invocation of Section 263 of the Income-tax Act by the Commissioner of Income-tax in the facts and circumstances was not justified. The aforesaid fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the Revenue. For the aforesaid reason and in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the assessee, we deem it appropriate to modify the ad interim order dated 20-11-2018 and direct that the appeal be listed for hearing" The aforesaid order has not been challenged by the Revenue before the Supreme Court. Therefore the aforesaid order binds us and the submission made by learned counsel for the Revenue that the hearing of the appeal needs to be deferred does not deserve acceptance. 7. The conditions precedent for invocation of power under section 263 of the Act namely that an order passed by an assessing officer must be prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and must be erroneous have to be fulfilled before power under section 263 of the Act is invoked. It is equally well settled legal proposition that where the view taken by assessing officer is one of the possible views the powers under section 263 of the Act would not be invoked [See: 'malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (Supra), CIT v. Max India Ltd. [2008] 166 Taxman 188/[2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC) and Ultratech Cement Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan [2020] 117 taxmann.com 807 (SC). 8. In the backdrop of aforesaid well settled legal position, we may advert to the facts of the case. The assessee had filed Form No. 10CCB of the Act along with written submissions before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), which was acknowledged by him in the order dated 11-3-2008. A bench of this court in CIT v. Ace Multitaxes Systems (P.) Ltd. [2009] 317 ITR 207 (Kar.) has taken a view that assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80IA of the Act even if the audit report is filed at the appellate stage. Similar view has been taken by Madras High Court in A.N. Arunachalam (supra). Thus, the view taken by the assessing officer with regard to eligibility of the assessee to claim deduction under section 80IA of the Act was one of the possible views. We are fortified in our aforesaid conclusion in view of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Act. The relevant extract of which reads as under: "The order u/s. 143(3) dated 14-06-2005 is, therefore, modified to the extent that deduction claimed u/s. 801 A is withdrawn and for the purpose of computing deduction u/s. 80HHC, deduction allowable u/s. 80IA has to be reduced from the business profits. Since deductions u/s. 80IA is being denied, there will be no change in the computation of deduction u/s. 80HHC for the time being. However, in case it is held by the appellate authority that the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s. 80IA, the deduction u/s. 80HHC will have to be recomputed keeping in mind the provisions of section 80IA(9)". 9. Thus the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax itself discloses that two views are possible. Therefore it is not necessary for us to deal with various contentions made by learned counsel for the parties. In the result the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. In the result, the order dated 11-3-2008 passed by the Page 5 of 5 Commissioner of Income-tax and order dated 23-11-2009 passed by the Tribunal are hereby quashed. 7. Respectfully following the above judgment, we hold that the assessee is eligible for claim of deduction under section 80IA of the Act. In the case on hand, the report in Form No.10CCB was very much available before processing of return by the CPC. However, the eligibility and quantum has not been examined by any of the lower authorities. Therefore, for limited purpose of verification of genuineness of claim, we are remitting this issue back to the file of juri ictional AO. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the court on the date mentioned on the caption page. (KESHAV DUBEY) Accountant Member Bangalore, Dated : 22.08.2025. /NS/* Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr.CIT4.CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. By order