Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80IA(4)(iv) of the Act. Form 10CCB was filed after the due date due to technical glitches but before the processing of the return under Section 143(1). The CPC disallowed the deduction.
Held
The Tribunal held that since Form 10CCB was filed before the processing of the return under Section 143(1), the assessee cannot be denied the deduction. The delay in filing was due to technical issues, and the assessee had raised a grievance.
Key Issues
Whether the disallowance of deduction under Section 80IA(4)(iv) by the CPC for delayed filing of Form 10CCB, when filed before processing of the return, is justified.
Sections Cited
250, 1961, 80IA, 143(1), 154
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE
Before: MS.ASTHA CHANDRA & DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE
Assessment Year: 2022-23 Vijay Devichand Nibjiya, V The DCIT, Office No.304/305/306, s. Circle-(5)/A.O. D Wing, 3rd Floor, Business Centralised Processing Court, Mukundnagar, Pune – Centre. 411037. Maharashtra. PAN: AANPN8491R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Nikhil S Pathak – AR Revenue by Shri Akhilesh Srivastva – DR Date of hearing 19/06/2025 Date of pronouncement 30/07/2025 आदेश/ ORDER
PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:
This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of ld.Add./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)-6, Delhi passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the A.Y.2022-23 dated 13.02.2025. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :
“11 The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of deduction of Rs.1,55,63,901/- u/s 801A(4)(iv) in the intimation u/s 143(1).
21 The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that - a. The report in Form 10CCB was filed by the appellant on 24.11.2022 i.e. before the return was processed u/s 143(1). b. The condition in section 801A that the report in Form 10CCB should be filed within the specified date was only directory and not mandatory and accordingly, filing of the report before the intimation was in compliance with the law as per various decisions and there was no violation of section 801A(7).
3] The learned CIT(A) was not justified in relying upon the decision of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Pradeep Kumar Batra by ignoring various decisions in favour of the assessee referred to on page 6 and 7 of his order.
4] The learned CIT(A) was not justified in making this disallowance in the intimation u/s 143(1) when such disallowance did not constitute a prima facie adjustment.
5] The learned CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the order u/s 154 when the disallowance of deduction u/s 801A, constituted a mistake apparent from record in view of the various decisions relied upon by the assessee.
6] The appellant requests for allowing the deduction u/s 801A of Rs.1,55,63,901/- as the same is rightly allowable in law.
7] The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.”
Submission of Ld.AR : 2. Ld.AR filed a paper book Ld.AR submitted that in this case assessee had claimed deduction u/s.80IA(4)(iv) of the Act, in the Return of Income . The Form 10CCB was filed on 24/11/2022. Due to technical glitches on the Income Tax Portal the Form 10CCB could not be filed within the statutory time limit. Ld.AR invited our attention to the copy of the Grievance raised by the Assessee regarding the same. Ld.AR submitted that the Form 10CCB was filed before the order u/s 143(1) was passed. Hence CPC had erred in not allowing the deduction. Ld.AR relied on the decision of ITAT Pune in the case of Desai Infra Projects P. Ltd Vs. CIT in Roxiler Systems P. Ltd., Vs. ITO in for A.Y.2022-23.
2.1 Ld.AR further pleaded that the CPC do not have any jurisdiction to disallow deduction. He referred to section 143(1) of the Act.
2.2 Ld.AR pleaded that the appeal of the assessee may be allowed.
Submission of Ld.DR : 3. The Ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of the CIT(A) and order u/s 143(1).
Findings and Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. The question before us is whether the ADIT(CPC) was right in disallowing assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iv) on the ground of delay in filing Form 10CCB ?
4.1 This issue has been decided in favour of Assessee by various Benches of ITAT.
4.2 The ITAT Pune in the case of Desai Infra Projects P. Ltd. Vs. CIT in for A.Y.2022-23 vide order dated 30/12/2024 has held as under : Quote “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.” Unquote. 4.3 It is observed that Assessee could not file Form No.10CCB due to technical problems and Assessee had raised grievance. Therefore, Assessee was prevented from filing Form No.10CCB.
4.4 Respectfully following the decision of ITAT Pune, since the Form No.10CCB was filed before the return was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act, we hold that assessee cannot be denied the deduction u/s.80IA(4)(iv) of the Act, for delay in filling Form No.10CCB. Accordingly, Ground Numbers 1, 2 & 6 raised by the assessee are allowed. The Ground Numbers 3, 4, 5 & 7 becomes academic in nature, accordingly, dismissed as unadjudicated.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30 July, 2025.