Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI & SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI
आदेश/ O R D E R
Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:
Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 11.03.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of rectification-order dated 26.12.2022 passed by learned CPC, Bengaluru [“AO”] u/s 154 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2021-22, the assessee has filed this appeal on following grounds:
“1. The Ld. CIT(A) NFAC has erred in not allowing the deduction and upholding the addition of s. 3,93,325/- Page 1 of 10 AY 2021-22 2. The assessee has filed the form 10CCB. It was proved before the Ld. Lower authorities that due to technical problem, the form could not be uploaded in time. However, the return was filed as per the audited balance sheet.
The addition of Rs. 3,93,325/- may please be deleted. The same could not be rectified under section 154.”
Precisely stated, the background facts leading to present appeal as culled out from record and as submitted by learned AR for assessee, are such that the assessee-individual filed original return of income of AY 2021- 22 on 01.02.2022 u/s 139(1) which was followed by a revised return filed on 12.03.2022 u/s 139(5). These returns were filed well before the extended due of 15.03.2022 for filing return u/s 139(1). In the revised return which was effective, the assessee declared a total income of Rs. 22,83,870/- after claiming a deduction of Rs. 3,93,325/- u/s 80-IB in respect of income derived from business of ‘integrated business of handling, storage and transportation of foodgrains’. The AO processed this return vide intimation dated 05.07.2022 u/s 143(1) denying the deduction claimed by assessee u/s 80-IB. Ld. AR submits that the denial of deduction was for the reason of non-filing of Form No. 10CCB (C.A. Certificate) by specified date [i.e. by 15.02.2022 being one month prior to the due date for filing of return u/s 139(1)]. The assessee, however, subsequently e-filed Form No. 10CCB on 07.10.2022 after processing of return u/s 143(1); the e-filing acknowledgement downloaded from CPC’s website is placed at Page 34 of Paper-Book. Aggrieved by action of AO by way of denial of deduction u/s 80- IB claimed in return, the assessee filed a rectification-application dated 17.12.2022 u/s 154 to AO but the same was also rejected. Ultimately,
Page 2 of 10 submissions but the CIT(A) was also not satisfied and dismissed assessee’s appeal by concluding thus:
“7. The submission made by the appellant is hereby considered. It is seen that the return of income was filed by the appellant on 01.02.2022 within the due date for the year under consideration. Further, Form 10CCB was filed by the appellant on 07/10/2022 after the due date for filing the return for AY 2021-22. 7.1 The appellant, in order to claim deduction u/s 801B has to file the form 10CCB before the specified date referred to in section 44AB. Section 44AB provides that the accounts of the assessee must be audited by an accountant and the said report in the prescribed form shall be furnished one month prior to the due date for furnishing the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. Section 80-IA(7)/80-IB (13) mandate that the deduction claimed under section 80-IA or 80-IB shall not be admissible unless the accounts are audited and the report of the accountant is furnished within the specified date. In the instant case the appellant filed form 10CCB on 07.10.2022 i.e. after the due date. The due date of furnishing of return of Income for the Assessment Year 2021-22, which was 30th November, 2021 under sub-section (1) of section 139 of the Act, as extended to 31st December, 2021 and 28th February, 2022 by Circular No. 9/2021 dated 20.05.2021 and Circular No. 17/2021 dated 09.09.2021 respectively. was further extended to 15th March, 2022. So, the appellant should have filed the Form 10CCB by 15.02.2022. However, the appellant filed it only on 07.10.2022 which is a delay of more than 07 months. Therefore, the deduction u/s 801B of the Act shall be admissible only if Form 10CCB is filed within the specified due date. The appellant has failed to file the form 10CCB within the specified date and therefore is not eligible for deduction u/s 80-IB of the Act.
8. The appellant has merely submitted that the delay was due to technical glitches on the portal and that it was beyond his control. However, it is seen that the appellant has not brought any material on record to show that the delay was on account of technical glitches in the portal. Mere submission of some reason for delay without substantiating the same, is not sustainable. Therefore, the order passed by the CPC u/s 154 of the Act on 26.12.2022 is found to be in order. Accordingly, grounds of appeal no. 01 & 02 raised by the appellant are hereby dismissed.” Now, aggrieved by CIT(A)’s order, the assessee has come in next appeal before us.
Page 3 of 10 perused.
Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee filed return of income on 12.03.2022 well before extended due date u/s 139(1) i.e. 15.03.2022.
Further, in the return so filed, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 3,93,325/- u/s 80-IB which is very much evident from Column No. 13(b) – ‘Deduction Under Chapter VI-A – Amount in Rs. as provided by Taxpaper’ of the intimation u/s 143(1) passed by AO. Further, the assessee also obtained Form No. 10CCB from auditor “CA Shri Ankur Goyal” on 29.12.2021 before preparing return of income wherein the auditor has certified the deduction of Rs. 3,93,325/- available to assessee [Pages 35-41 of Paper-Book]. During hearing, the auditor of assessee “CA Shri Ankur Goyal” was also present in court alongwith Ld. AR and he asserted that the Form No. 10CCB was issued by him on 29.12.2021. Thus, the exercise of obtaining Form No. 10CCB was done before specified date i.e. 15.02.2022 under section 80-IB.
However, what could not be done was the uploading/e-filing of Form No. 10CCB. Subsequently, after receipt of intimation u/s 143(1), the assessee uploaded/e-filed Form No. 10CCB on 07.10.2022.
Ld. AR next submitted that the delayed uploading/e-filing of Form No. 10CCB was a procedural lapse which should not obstruct the substantive benefit of statutory deduction legally allowable to assessee. Ld. AR then relied upon CBDT Circular No. 669 dated 25.10.1993 and No. 689 dated 24.08.1994 wherein the CBDT has clarified that if the evidence supporting
Page 4 of 10 empowered to entertain application u/s 154 for rectification of intimation u/s 143(1) or order u/s 143(3) and decide issue on merit. Ld. AR submitted that the CBDT Circulars are clear pointer to the proposition that even if the evidence of deduction is not filed before assessment u/s 143(1)/143(3) but the same is filed subsequently, the deduction must be allowed. Ld. AR also relied upon certain decisions cited below:
(a) Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in ITO Vs. Smt. Mandira D. Vakharia
(2001) 250 ITR 432:
“8. By the Board circular, it has been made clear that if the audit report specified under Section 80HHC(4) is not furnished with the return, then the deduction may be disallowed as a prima facie adjustment. But, if evidence is subsequently furnished, rectification under Section 154 should be carried out to the extent permitted by the Board Circular No. 669, dated October 25, 1993 (see [1993] 204 ITR (St.) 105). The circular then proceeds to mention some other provisions in regard to the non-filing of the audit report or other evidence along with the return of income as required under various Sections such as 12A(b), 33AB(2), 35E(6), 43B (first proviso), 80-I(7), 80-IA(8) and the like. The case of the Revenue is that since Sections 80HHE and 80GG are not specifically mentioned in the Board circular, the assessee would not be entitled to the benefit of deductions under Sections 80HHE and 80GG on the furnishing of the audit report/proof with the rectification application.
9. The submission is without any substance. The intention of the Board is clear. The illustrations and instances referred to in the Board circular are qualified by the words ". . . and the like". The illustrations and instances given by the Board are not exhaustive. The intention behind the Board circular is that in case the audit report required to be filed, was not furnished with the return of income, then the deduction claimed can be disallowed as a prima facie adjustment. But, if it is furnished subsequently, then rectification should be carried out to the extent permitted by the Board Circular No. GG9, dated October 25, 1993 (see [1993] 204 ITR (St.) 105). The illustrations given in the Board circular, being not exhaustive, it would include provisions like Sections 80HHE and 80GG as well. The assessee has claimed the same relief as would have been admissible to an assessee who was claiming deduction under Section 80HHC(4) and other sections mentioned in the Board's circular. The assessee claiming deduction under Sections 80HHE and 80GG of the Act would be similarly situated as an assessee claiming deduction
Page 5 of 10 AY 2021-22 under Section 80HHC(4) of the Act or other provisions mentioned in the Board circular. The use of the words " . . . . and the like", in the Board circular, would include the assessees who are claiming a similar relief although the provision of the Act is not specifically mentioned in the Board circular.
10. The assessee would be entitled to the deductions in the rectification under Section 154 to the extent permitted by the Board Circular No. 669, dated October 25, 1993 (see [1993] 204 ITR (St.) 105). The Assessing Officer was not right in law in disallowing the rectification application only on the ground that the assessee had failed to furnish the audit report along with the return of income.
The Tribunal was right in law in extending the benefit of the Board circular to the assessee's case as well. The Assessing Officer has rightly been directed to rectify his order and extend the benefit of deductions under Sections 80HHE and 80GG of the Act to the assessee in terms of the Board's circular.
For the reasons stated above, the substantial questions of law on which the appeal is admitted, are answered in the affirmative, i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.” (b) ITAT, Lucknow in M/s Satish Cold Storage Vs. DCIT, &
77/Lucknow/2021, AY 2017-18 & 2018-19:
“4. I have heard the rival parties and have perused the material available on record. I find that it is undisputed fact that the claim of the assessee u/s. 80IB has not been allowed by the authorities below only because of the reason that the audit report in Form-10CCB was not filed along with return of income and was only filed after receipt of intimation u/s. 143(1) and therefore, the assessee filed rectification applications u/s. 154 of the Act after uploading Form-10CCB which was rejected by CPC. The ld. CIT(A) has rejected the appeals by holding that there was no mistake apparent from record. However, while holding so, he escaped the contents of Circular No.689 dated 24.8.1994 which clearly directs the Officers to allow rectification u/s. 154 for non-filing of audit report or other evidence which could not be filed with the return of income. For the sake of completeness, the contents of Circular No.689 are reproduced below: XXX 5. I further find that taking cognizance of this circular the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of ITO vs. Smt. Mandira D Vakharia vide order dated 17.11.2000 has decided similar issue in favour of the assessee. The findings of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court are reproduced below: XXX
Page 6 of 10 AY 2021-22 6. In view of above facts and circumstances and judicial precedents, I find merit in the arguments of assessee and therefore, the appeals of assessee are allowed.” (c) ITAT, Delhi in Baldev Singh & Sons Vs. DCIT, ITA No. 3103/Del/2023,
AY 2021-22:
“4. The Ld. AR Submitted that the core issue involved in this appeal was denial of deduction under section 80IB of the Act for the reason that the audit report in Form-10CCB was not filed along with the ITR and was only filed after the receipt of intimation under section 143(1) of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that auditor of the assessee who was also dealing with tax matters omitted to upload the audit report in Form-10CCB and therefore, the AO-CPC rejected its claim of deduction under section 80IB of the Act and the assessee, on receipt of intimation under section 143(1) of the Act, filed an application under section 154 of the Act after uploading the copy of audit report in Form-10CCB, which was rejected by the AO-CPC. Further, the appeal filed before the Ld. CIT(A) against the order passed under section 154 of the Act by the AO-CPC also dismissed as above. 4.1 The Ld. AR in this respect submitted that the CBDT, vide Circular Nos. 669 dated 25-10-1993 and Circular No. 689, dated 24.8.1994, had allowed rectification to be carried out under section 154 of the Act in case the evidence of the claim of deduction under section 80HHC of the Act was filed subsequent to the date of furnishing of the ITR for claim. The Ld. AR prayed that the intent of the above-mentioned CBDT Circulars should be followed in the letter and spirit in this case also. The Ld. AR also placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the cases of Craftsman Automation P. Ltd. 435 ITR 558 and L-Cube Innovative Solutions P. Ltd. 435 ITR 566 and the decision of the Hon'ble Karnatka High Court in the case of Mandira D Vakharia 250 ITR 432; wherein similar issue in respect of deduction under section 80HHC had been decided in favour of assessees. Further, the Ld. AR, placing reliance on the decision of Tribunal (SMC Bench, Lucknow) in the case of Satish Cold Storage in & 77/Lkw/2021 (date of order: 25.05.2022), submitted that the present case was squarely covered by this decision. Accordingly, in view of these facts, circumstances and judicial pronouncements, he prayed for relief by allowing the claim under section 80IB of the Act particularly when the said deduction had been allowed in preceding years in past by the AO only.
5. On the other hand, the Ld. Sr. DR supported orders of authorities below. He contended that the appeal before the Addl. CIT was against the order passed under section 154 of the Act. Since there was no mistake in the said order as the audit report in Form 10CCB was not available when the AO-CPC passed order under section 143(1) of the Act. Therefore, the Ld. Addl. CIT(A) had rightly dismissed the appeal of the assessee. He prayed for dismissal of this appeal accordingly.
We have heard both parties and have perused the material available on the records. There is no dispute in facts. Undisputedly, the AO-CPC and the Page 7 of 10 AY 2021-22 Addl. CIT(A) disallowed the deduction under section 80IB of the Act for sole reason that the audit report in Form-10CCB was not filed along with the ITR and was only filed after the receipt of intimation under section 143(1) of the Act. There is no question on the eligibility of the claim of deduction under section 80IB of the Act. It is an undisputed fact that the said deduction under section 80IB of the Act has been allowed over the years in the past. Only a genuine failure of not uploading the audit report in Form- 10CCB along with the ITR by the person uploading the ITR is the root cause of the dispute. The Tribunal (SMC Bench, Lucknow) in the case of Satish Cold Storage (supra) has allowed the appeal on the similar issue. The relevant part of the said decision in & 77/Lkw/2021 (date of order: 25.05.2022) reads as under: XXX 7. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered view that this case is squarely covered by the decision of Tribunal (SMC Bench, Lucknow) in the case of Satish Cold Storage (supra). We therefore, following the reasoning given by the SMC Bench of Lucknow Tribunal in the case of Satish Cold Storage (supra), allow the deduction under section 80IB of the Act. The assessee gets consequential relief on this score.”
6. Thus, the Ld. AR, referring to CBDT Circulars and judicial precedents cited above, submitted that the AO is wrong in not giving benefit of deduction to assessee when the assessee has already filed Form No. 10CCB before filing application u/s 154. Ld. AR prayed to allow deduction to assessee.
Ld. DR for revenue though relied upon orders of lower-authorities.
We have considered rival contentions of both sides and perused the orders of lower-authorities as well as the material held on record to which our attention has been drawn. The controversy in present case is very narrow. The chronology of events explained by Ld. AR with reference to the documents held on record show that (i) the assessee claimed deduction u/s 80-IB in the return of income filed on 12.03.2022 before due date u/s 139(1) i.e. 15.03.2022; (ii) the auditor of assessee issued Form No. 10CCB on Page 8 of 10 the assessee has subsequently filed Form No. 10CCB to AO’s office on 07.10.2022. Therefore, in this situation, what we find is that there is a delay in uploading/e-filing Form No. 10CCB but this delay is a procedural lapse.
We find that this situation is already decided by this very bench of ITAT, Indore in a recent order dated 30.09.3025 in Jehan Numa Palace Hotel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT/ACIT 5(1), Bhopal, in favour of assessee. In coming to conclusion, this bench has taken note of the very same decisions as cited by Ld. AR for assessee narrated above.
Respectfully, following the pre-existing view of this bench, we hold that the deduction statutorily available to assessee u/s 80-IB cannot be denied for delayed filing of Form No. 10CCB and the same must be allowed.
So far as the reason for non-filing of Form No. 10CCB in time is concerned, the assessee has attributed the same to technical glitch but the Ld. CIT(A) has noted an adverse observation that the assessee had not brought any material on record to show that the delay was on account of technical glitch. Even during hearing before us, Ld. AR for assessee showed inability to produce any evidence but, however, he emphasized that there was in fact technical glitch though the assessee has not kept any evidence.
Further, the Ld. AR insisted repeatedly on the judicial view that the deduction statutorily available to assessee cannot be denied for delay in uploading/filing of Form No. 10CCB. We made it clear to Ld. AR that since the assessee has not offered any evidence to establish the factum of Page 9 of 10 offset the revenue for lethargy on the part of assessee in not filing Form No. 10CCB in time or for lethargy in maintaining evidence to show the technical glitch. The Ld. AR for assessee instantly agreed to our point. Accordingly, we direct the assessee to pay a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to Income-tax Department by a suitable challan and submit proof to AO.
In view of details discussions and subject to payment of cost by assessee as noted above, we direct the AO to allow deduction to assessee u/s 80-IB on the basis of Form No. 10CCB filed by assessee on 07.10.2022 which is available in departmental database. The assessee accordingly succeeds in this appeal.
11. Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in open court on 07/11/2025