M/S. BHAT BIOTECH INDIA PVT. LTD.,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(4), BENGALURU

BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM Assessment Year : 2012 – 13 M/s Bhat Biotech India Pvt. Ltd., No. 47, 38th Main, 6th Cross, vs. ITO, Ward – 7 (2) (4), BTM Layout, II Stage, Bengaluru Bengaluru - 560068 PAN : AAACB7393N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shree S. Ramasubramanian, C. A. Revenue by : Smt. R. Premi, JCIT DR Date of Hearing : 18.02.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 13.03.2020 O R D E R PER SHRI A.K. GARODIA, AM:

This appeal is filed by the assessee and it is directed against the order of CIT(A) – 3 Bengaluru dated 04.12.2017.

but the grievance of the assessee is only about disallowance of Rs. 116,91,078/- u/s 35. (2AB) of I T Act. In course of hearing, learned AR of the assessee submitted that the issue in dispute was decided against the assessee by the AO and CUIT (A) mainly on this basis that the assessee could not produce the certificate issued by DSIR in Form

ITA Nos.1106/(B)/2016 Page 2 of 3 3CL. He placed reliance on the tribunal order rendered in the case of Mahindra Electric Mobility Limited vs. ACIT in dated 14.09.2018, copy on pages 38 to 54 of the paper book and in particular, our attention was drawn to para 20 of this tribunal order on page 52 & 53 of the paper book and it was pointed out that in this para, it is held by the tribunal that prior to 01.07.2016, Form 3CL had no legal sanctity and it is only w.e.f. 01.07.2016 with the amendment to Rule 6 (7A) (b) of the Rules, the quantification of the weighted deduction u/s 35 (2AB) of the Act has significance. He submitted that the issue should be decided in principle in favour of the assessee and it should be held that even in absence of Form 3CL, deduction is allowable u/s 35 (2AB) and for quantification of the deduction, the matter may be remanded to AO. As against this, learned DR of the revenue supported the orders of the lower authorities. Regarding the tribunal order cited by the learned AR of the assessee, she submitted that facts of that case are noted by the tribunal in para 2 on page 39 of the paper book. She pointed out that as per the facts noted by the tribunal in this para, the R & D center was duly approved by DSIR and expenses u/s 35 (2AB) was approved by DSIR in that case in all subsequent year and had been allowed by AO in subsequent years. She submitted that there is no clarity on these aspects in the present case and therefore, in the present case, the matter may be restored to AO for a fresh decision on all aspects in the light of this tribunal order and not for merely quantifying the deduction.

(B)/2016 Page 3 of 3 3. We have considered the rival submission and we feel it proper to restore the entire matter restored to AO for a fresh decision on all aspects in the light of this tribunal order and not for merely quantifying the deduction. We order accordingly because on several aspects of facts of the present case, there is no clarity.