SHRI POORNIMA ENTERTAINMENTS LLP,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAIPUR
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCH “A”, JAIPUR
Before: Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI & SHRI GAGAN GOYALShri Poornima Entertainments LLP, Flat No. A-304, SDC Gateway, Plot No. B-1-2, Ghiya Marg Bani Park, Jaipur 302 016 PAN No.: AEAFS 8967C
PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M:
This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of Addl./JCIT (A)-06,
Kolkata dated 25.03.2025 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short
‘the Act’). The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -
2
Shri Poornima Entertainments LLP
In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-6, Kolkata has erred in confirming the adjustment made in the intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("ITA"), which is outside the purview of Section 143(1). The action of the Ld. Addl. /JCIT (A)-6, Kolkata is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the entire addition of Rs. 3,80,71,814/- made to the returned income of the assessee firm. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. AddI./JCIT(A)-6, Kolkata has erred in confirming the rejection of the claim made by the assessee firm under Section 80-IAC of ITA of Rs. 3,80,26,814/- for the year under consideration. The action of the Ld. Addl. /JCIT (A)-6, Kolkata is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by allowing such claim, under Section 80-IAC, as originally made by the assessee firm in its return of income. 3. The assessee firm craves its rights to add, amend or alter any of the grounds on or before the hearing.
The brief background is that the Assessee Appellant M/s. Shri Poornima Entertainments LLP is engaged in Sports Industry, Sports Promotion and Networking Sector. Assessee Appellant was recognized as a “Start-up” by the Department of Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, bearing Registration No. DIPP73097, vide certificate dated 08.01.2021. Subsequently, Assessee Appellant filed an application, with DPIIT, for being considered as an “Eligible Startup” for the purpose of claiming benefit under section 80IAC of the Act. The said certificate was granted to the Assessee Appellant on 31.03.2022. 3. Assessee Appellant, for the year under consideration, filed its Return of Income under section 139(1) of the Act, on 31.10.2023, at a total income of Rs. Nil, claiming deduction under section 80IAC of the Act of Rs. 3,80,26,814/-. However, Form No. 10CCB could not be filed within the due date as per section 3 Shri Poornima Entertainments LLP
80IA (7) of the Act for claiming such deduction. On receipt of intimation on 11.12.2023 for proposed adjustments u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Act, Form No. 10CCB was filed by the Assessee Appellant on 25.12.2023 for claiming deduction of Rs.
3,80,26,814/-. Thereafter, Assessee Appellant filed revised Audit Report [Form
3CA-3CD] on 26.12.2023 for reporting its claim of deduction u/s. 80IAC of the Act.
Return of Income was revised under section 139(5) of the Act on 27.12.2023
wherein claim under section 80IAC of the Act was duly supported by Form No.
10CCB. Assessee Appellant filed its response against the proposed adjustments under section 143(1) (a) of the Act on 09.01.2024 stating the aforementioned facts and requesting for allowing the claim of the Assessee Appellant. However,
Return of Income filed by the Assessee Appellant was processed under section 143(1) of the Act on 25.03.2024, rejecting the claim made under section 80IAC of the Act of Rs.3,80,26,814/-, thereby, creating demand against the Assessee
Appellant.
4. Ld. AR of the Assessee Appellant submitted that intimation for proposed adjustment was received on 11.12.2023. Due date for response was 10.01.2024. After receiving the intimation for proposed adjustment the Assessee Appellant filed Form No. 10CCB on 25.12.2023. It also filed Revised Tax Audit Report for reporting its claim of deduction on 26.12.2023. The revised Return of Income giving effect of filing Form No. 10CCB and Revised Tax Audit Report was filed on 27.12.2023. The revision of Return was well within the time prescribed under section 139(5). The reply to the proposed adjustment was also filed on 09.01.2024. 4
Shri Poornima Entertainments LLP
On the basis of above factual matrix ld. AR submitted that when the Return of Income was processed under section 143(1) of the Act on 25.03.2024, Form No. 10CCB was available with the AO/ CPC. Return of Income as well as Tax Audit Report was also revised. Thus, ld. AR emphasized that there is no justification to deny the deduction under section 80IAC of the Act amounting to Rs. 3, 80, 26,814/-, just because Form No. 10CCB could not be filed along with the original Return of Income. 6. Ld. AR further submitted that it is undisputed that the Assessee Appellant is eligible for claim of deduction under section 80IAC of the Act. It is not the case of Lower Authorities that any of the substantive conditions for claim of 80IAC of the Act deduction is not complied with by the Assessee Appellant. It was submitted before the Lower Authorities that filing of Form No. 10CCB, within the prescribed time, was only a procedural requirement and not a substantive condition. It was also submitted that the lapse of not filing the Form No. 10CCB, within the prescribed time, could not be fatal leading to complete denial of deduction under section 80IAC of the Act. 7. Ld. AR further submitted that the above proposition of law was supported by various judicial pronouncements including the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the Juri ictional High Court. It was submitted before the Lower Authorities that the issue is no more res integra because similar requirements existed in sections such as 80IA, 80IB and 80J of the Act etc. The said sections, in respect of filing of Form No. 10CCB are pari-materia to section 80IAC of the Act. The issue of delay in filing Form No. 10CCB, under these sections, has been adjudicated by various judicial forums which have held that 5 Shri Poornima Entertainments LLP such lapse in compliance of procedural requirement can in no way lead to denial of deduction under respective sections. The following judicial pronouncements were brought to the notice of ld. Lower Authorities: S No. Title of the case Forum 1. G.M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd, Civil Appeal Nos. 10782 of 2013 and 4048 of 2014 Supreme Court 2. Novelty Garments [2002] 256 ITR 688 (Raj) Rajasthan High Court 3. Fortuna Foundation Engineers & Consultants (P.) Ltd. [2017] 81 taxmann.com 189 (Allahabad) Allahabad High Court 4. AKS Alloys (P.) Ltd. [2012] 18 taxmann.com 25 (Mad.) Madras High Court 5. Zenith Processing Mills V. CIT [1996] 219 ITR 721 (Gujarat) Gujarat High Court 6. Shivanand Electronics [1994] 75 Taxman 93 (Bom.) Bombay High Court 7. Ambience Holiday Resorts Ltd., ITA No. 1820/Del/2020 ITAT Delhi 8. Nitesh Kumar J. Shah ITA No. 430/Ahd/2022 ITAT Ahmedabad 9. Surendra Steels Private Limited ITA No. 78/Kol/2022 ITAT Kolkata 10. Dunichand Khitri Raja ITA No. 315/Bang/2023 ITAT Bangalore 11. RSM Sapthagiri Finance Ltd ITA Nos. 96/CHNY/2021 and 269/CHNY/2021 ITAT Chennai 12. Hi-Tech Sweet Water Technologies (P.) Ltd ITA No. 230/SRT/2022 ITAT Surat
6
Shri Poornima Entertainments LLP
Ld. AR placed further reliance on certain recent judicial pronouncements wherein also the proposition that delay in filing Form No. 10CCB is only a procedural requirement and such delay cannot lead to denial of deduction under respective sections was held: i. Desai Infra Projects (I) Private Limited v. CIT(A) in ITA No. 1852/PUN/2024
“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.”
ii.
Roxiler Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO in ITA No. 2078/PUN/2024
“The Audit Report was uploaded before filling of return of Income. Thus at the time of Order u/s 143(1) the Audit report was before the Assessing Officer. In these facts and circumstances, as Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G.M Knitting (supra) and Hon’ble
Juri ictional High Court in the case of Shivanand Electronics (supra)had held that once the Audit report was available to the Assessing officer at the time of passing Assessment
Order the AO should have considered it.”
iii.
Nitesh kumar J. Shah v. DCIT in ITA No. 430/Ahd/2022
“7.1 Accordingly, in the light of the above discussion, in our considered view, ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in not allowing the claim of the assessee on the ground that benefit of section 80-IA of the Act is not available to the assessee if the assessee does not e-file Form 10CCB along with return of income when the assessee admittedly furnished
From 10CCB, prior the return of income filed by the assessee being processed by the Department u/s. 143(1) of the Act.”
7
Shri Poornima Entertainments LLP
Ganpati Gems & Jewellers v. ACIT (2025) 236 TTJ (Jp) 100
Per Contra the ld. DR submitted that filing of Form No. 10CCB within specified date is a mandatory requirement for claiming deduction under section 80IAC of the Act. He, therefore, supported the Order of ld. CIT (A). We have gone through the Orders of the ld. Lower Authorities, heard the rival submissions and appreciated the various judicial pronouncements cited before us. It is undisputed that the Assessee Appellant did not file Form No. 10CCB along with the original Return of Income. However, it is also undisputed that after receiving the intimation for proposed adjustment, Assessee Appellant filed the Form No. 10CCB, revised the Tax Audit Report as well as the Return of Income. Thus, Form No. 10CCB along with Revised Tax Audit Report as well Revised Return of Income was on record well before the date of processing the Return under section 143(1) of the Act. 10. The various Courts have held that filing of Form is only a procedural requirement. The substantive compliance in respect of eligibility of the claim has been made by the Assessee Appellant. The basic eligibility criteria of Eligible Start Up are not in dispute. Lapse of procedural requirement that too made good before the processing of Return cannot be fatal to deny the claim of deduction under section 80IAC of the Act.
8
Shri Poornima Entertainments LLP
In view of the settled judicial view that such procedural lapse should not lead to denial of claim, we hold that the Assessee Appellant is eligible for deduction and, therefore, the Lower Authorities were not justified in denying the claim for mere procedural lapse. Accordingly, the Grounds as taken by the Assessee Appellant stand allowed. 12. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. The Order is pronounced in the open court on the 19th day of August 2025. (Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Jaipur, िदनांक/Dated: 19/08/2025
Copy of the Order forwarded to:
अपीलाथ /The Appellant , 2. ितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु CIT 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., Sr.DR., ITAT, 5. गाड फाइल/Guard file.
BY ORDER,
////
(Asstt.