ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY FUTURE SOFT PRIVATE LIMITED), CHENNAI

:: 3 :: the said Form 56F. The Ld.CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee merely based on discussion about Form 56F and cursory mentioning of approval granted by the Director, STPI without going into the merits of the case. Ld.CIT-DR further argued that the filing of Form No.56F is mandatory and not directory and referred the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mr.Mahendra Kumar Damani in & 806/Chny/2022 for AYs 2016-17 & 2019-20 order dated 08.02.2023, wherein the Tribunal held as under:

4. The Ld.CIT(A) after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also by following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr.CIT v. Wipro Ltd., reported in [2022] 140 taxmann.com 223 (SC) held that as per provisions of Sec.10A(5) of the Act, filing of Audit Report in Form No.56F and furnishing said report along with return of income is mandatory in nature, but not directory. Since, the assessee did not file Audit Report in Form No.56F as required u/s.10AA(8) of the Act, the AO has rightly disallowed deduction claimed u/s.10AA of the Act, and thus, rejected arguments of the assessee and sustained additions made towards disallowance of deduction claimed u/s.10AA of the Act. The relevant findings of the Ld.CIT(A) are as under:

8. I have carefully considered the facts of the case, the intimation u/s.143(1) and the written submission of the assessee. In the intimation u/s.143(1) dated 24.04.2017, the ADIT (CPC) made disallowance of deduction of Rs.75,71,621/- claimed u/s.10AA of the Act, in view of the failure of the assessee to furnish the audit report in Form 56F in support of the said deduction along with the return of income filed on 16.10.2016. In the written submission, the assessee contended that the requirement to file the audit report in Form 56F along with the return of income is merely a procedural/directory requirement and not a mandatory requirement for allowing the said deduction. The assessee contended that since the audit report in Form 56F was belatedly filed on 01.03.2022, subsequent to filing the return of income, the deduction claimed u/s 10AA is required to be allowed. The assessee placed reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner (1992 AIR 152, 1991 SCR (3) 336) and Sambhaji and others Vs. Gangabai and others reported in (2008) 17 SCC 117 in support of this contention.

9. On careful examination, it is considered that the contention of the assessee is not tenable. The assessee filed his return of income on 16.10.2016, wherein he claimed deduction u/s 10AA of the Act. However, the audit report in Form 56F in support of the said deduction

:: 4 :: was not filed by the assessee along with the return of income. The said report was filed subsequently on01.03.2022. The deduction claimed u/s 10AA was disallowed in the Intimation u/s 143(1) on account of failure of the assessee to furnish the audit report in Form 56F along with the return of income. Sub-section (8) of section 10AA provides that the provisions of sub-section (5) of section 10A shall apply to in relation to the deduction specified in section 10AA(1). The said section 10A(5) of the Act, which has been made applicable to section 10AA also, deals with the requirement of furnishing a report of the accountant (audit report) in the prescribed form, certifying that deduction has been correctly claimed in accordance in accordance with the provisions of the section. The said section 10A(5) further lays down that the audit report is required to be filed along with the return of income. Rule 16D of the Income Tax rules prescribes that the audit report as specified in section 10A(5) is required to be filed in Form 56F.

10. It is pertinent to observe that the provisions of section 10A(5) are very clearly and unambiguously worded so as to provide that the deduction shall not be admissible unless the assessee furnishes the report of the accountant in the prescribed form along with the return of income, certifying that the deduction has been correctly claimed in accordance with the provisions of the section. The language so employed in section 10A(5) does not leave any doubt that the requirement to furnish the audit report along with the return of income is a mandatory condition for the admissibility of the deduction. In a recent decision dated 11.07.2022 in the case of Pr.CIT Vs. Wipro Ltd [2022] 140 taxmann.com 223 (SC), the, Hon'ble Supreme Court held, while interpreting the provisions of section 10B(8) requiring a declaration to be filed before the due date for furnishing the return of income, that the twin conditions of furnishing the declaration to the AO and furnishing of the same before the due date for filing the return of income u/s.139(1) are mandatory and they cannot be treated as directory. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it cannot be disputed that in a taxing statute the provisions are to be read as they are and they are to be literally construed, more particularly in a case of exemption sought by an assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the submission on behalf of the assessee that the assessee had a substantive statutory right under section 10B(8) to opt out of Section 10B which cannot be nullified by construing the purely procedural time requirement regarding the filing of the declaration under section 10B (8) as being mandatory has no substance and that the exemption provisions are to be strictly and literally complied with and the same cannot be construed as procedural requirement. The relevant portion of the said decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is extracted as under:

5. We have heard Shri Balbir Singh, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the Revenue and Shri S. Ganesh, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the assessee at length and perused the material on record.

The short question which is posed for consideration of this Court is, whether, for claiming exemption under Section 10B (8) of the IT Act, the assessee is required to fulfil the twin conditions, namely, (i) furnishing a declaration to the assessing officer in writing that the provisions of Section 10B (8) may not (AY 2006-07) Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd.

:: 5 :: be made applicable to him; and (ii) the said declaration to be furnished before the due date of filing the return of income under sub-section (1) of Section 139 of the IT Act.

6. In the present case, the High Court as well as the ITAT have observed and held that for claiming the so-called exemption relief under Section 10B (8) of the IT Act, furnishing the declaration to the assessing officer is mandatory but furnishing the same before the due date of filing the original return of income is directory. In the present case, when the assessee submitted its original return of income under Section 139(1) of the IT Act on 31.10.2001, which was the due date for filing of the original return of income, the assessee specifically and clearly stated that it is a company and is a 100% export- oriented unit and entitled to claim exemption under Section 10B of the IT Act and therefore no loss is being carried forward. Along with the original return filed on 31.10.2001, the assessee also annexed a note to the computation of income clearly stating as above. However, thereafter the assessee filed the revised return of income under Section 139(5) of the IT Act on 23.12.2002 and filed a declaration under Section 10B (8) which admittedly was after the due date of filing of the original return under Section 139(1), i.e., 31.10.2001.

7. It is the case on behalf of the Revenue that as there was a non- compliance of twin conditions under Section 10B (8) of the IT Act, namely, the declaration under Section 10B (8) was not submitted along with the original return of income, the assessee shall not be entitled to the exemption/benefit under Section 10B (8) of the IT Act. According to the Revenue, furnishing of declaration under Section 10B (8) before the due date of filing original return of income is also mandatory. On the other hand, it is the case on behalf of the assessee, which has been accepted by the High Court, that the requirement of submission of declaration under Section 10B (8) is mandatory in nature, but the time limit within which the declaration is to be filed is directory in nature.

8. While considering the issue involved, whether the time limit within which the declaration is to be filed as provided under Section 10B (8) is mandatory or directory, Section 10B (8) is required to be referred to, which reads as under:

“10B (8) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section, where the assessee, before the due date for furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of Section 139, furnishes to the Assessing Officer a declaration in writing that the provisions of this section may not be made applicable to him, the provisions of this section shall not apply to him for any of the relevant assessment years.” On a plain reading of Section 10B (8) of the IT Act as it is, i.e., “where the assessee, before the due date for furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139, furnishes to the Assessing Officer a declaration in writing that the provisions of Section 10B may not be made applicable

:: 6 :: to him, the provisions of Section 10B shall not apply to him for any of the relevant assessment years”, we note that the wording of the Section 10B (8) is very clear and unambiguous. For claiming the benefit under Section 10B (8), the twin conditions of furnishing the declaration to the assessing officer in writing and that the same must be furnished before the due date of filing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 of the IT Act are required to be fulfilled and/or satisfied. In our view, both the conditions to be satisfied are mandatory. It cannot be said that one of the conditions would be mandatory and the other would be directory, where the words used for furnishing the declaration to the assessing officer and to be furnished before the due date of filing the original return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 are same/similar. It cannot be disputed that in a taxing statute the provisions are to be read as they are and they are to be literally construed, more particularly in a case of exemption sought by an assessee.

9. In such a situation, filing a revised return under section 139(5) of the IT Act claiming carrying forward of losses subsequently would not help the assessee. In the present case, the assessee filed its original return under section 139(1) and not under section 139(3). Therefore, the Revenue is right in submitting that the revised return filed by the assessee under section 139(5) can only substitute its original return under Section 139(1) and cannot transform it into a return under Section 139(3), in order to avail the benefit of carrying forward or set-off of any loss under Section 80 of the IT Act. The assessee can file a revised return in a case where there is an omission or a wrong statement. But a revised return of income, under Section 139(5) cannot be filed, to withdraw the claim and subsequently claiming the carried forward or set- off of any loss. Filing a revised return under Section 139(5) of the IT Act and taking a contrary stand and/or claiming the exemption, which was specifically not claimed earlier while filing the original return of income is not permissible. By filing the revised return of income, the assessee cannot be permitted to substitute the original return of income filed under section 139(1) of the IT Act. Therefore, claiming benefit under section 10B (8) and furnishing the declaration as required under section 10B (8) in the revised return of income which was much after the due date of filing the original return of income under section 139(1) of the IT Act, cannot mean that the assessee has complied with the condition of furnishing the declaration before the due date of filing the original return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. As observed hereinabove, for claiming the benefit under section 10B (8), both the conditions of furnishing the declaration and to file the same before the due date of filing the original return of income are mandatory in nature.

10. Even the submission on behalf of the assessee that it was not necessary to exercise the option under section 10B (8) of the IT Act and even without filing the revised return of income, the assessee could have submitted the declaration in writing to (AY 2006-07) Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd.

:: 7 :: the assessing officer during the assessment proceedings has no substance and the same cannot be accepted. Even the submission made on behalf of the assessee that filing of the declaration subsequently and may be during the assessment proceedings would have made no difference also has no substance. The significance of filing a declaration under section 10B (8) can be said to be co-terminus with filing of a return under section 139(1), as a check has been put in place by virtue of section 10B (5) to verify the correctness of claim of deduction at the time of filing the return. If an assessee claims an exemption under the Act by virtue of Section 10B, then the correctness of claim has already been verified under section 10B (5). Therefore, if the claim is withdrawn post the date of filing of return, the accountant’s report under section 10B (5) would become falsified and would stand to be nullified.

12. Even the submission on behalf of the assessee that the assessee had a substantive statutory right under Section 10B (8) to opt out of Section 10B which cannot be nullified by construing the purely procedural time requirement regarding the filing of the declaration under Section 10B (8) as being mandatory also has no substance. As observed hereinabove, the exemption provisions are to be strictly and literally complied with and the same cannot be construed as procedural requirement.

13. So far as the submission on behalf of the assessee that against the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Moser Baer (supra), a special leave petition has been dismissed as withdrawn and the revenue cannot be permitted to take a contrary view is concerned, it is to be noted that the special leave petition against the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Moser Baer (supra) has been dismissed as withdrawn due to there being low tax effect and the question of law has specifically been kept open. Therefore, withdrawal of the special leave petition against the decision of the Delhi High

14. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that the High Court has committed a grave error in observing and holding that the requirement of furnishing a declaration under Section 10B (8) of the IT Act is mandatory, but the time limit within which the declaration is to be filed is not mandatory but is directory. The same is erroneous and contrary to the unambiguous language contained in Section 10B (8) of the IT Act. We hold that for claiming the benefit under Section 10B (8) of the IT Act, the twin conditions of furnishing a declaration before the assessing officer and that too before the due date of filing the original return of income under section 139(1) are to be satisfied and both are mandatorily to be complied with. Accordingly, the question of law is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The orders passed by the High Court as well as ITAT taking a contrary view are hereby set aside and it is held that the assessee shall not be entitled to the benefit under Section 10B (8) of the IT Act on non- compliance of the twin conditions as provided under Section 10B (8) of the IT Act, as observed hereinabove. The present Appeal is accordingly Allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

11. The above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Wipro Ltd (supra) which was rendered with reference to section 10B(8) is squarely applicable to the assessee's case, as the plain language of section 10A(5) is also clear and unambiguous that the conditions of filing the audit report in Form 56F and furnishing the said report along with the return of income are mandatory conditions for admissibility of the deduction. Hence, by respectfully following the said binding decision, it is held that the requirement to furnish the audit report in Form 56F along with the return of income is a mandatory requirement and not a directory requirement. Since the assessee did not furnish the audit report in Form 56F along with the return of income, which is an undisputed fact, it is evident that the assessee did not fulfill the said mandatory requirement for admissibility of the deduction u/s.10AA of the Act. Consequently, it is held that the deduction of Rs.75,71,621/- claimed u/s 10AA of the Act is not admissible, in the hands of the assessee on account of failure to comply with the said mandatory requirement. Accordingly, it is held that the disallowance of deduction u/s.10AA of Rs.75,71,621/- made in the Intimation u/s.143(1) is sustainable. These grounds of appeal are therefore dismissed.

5. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that although, the assessee could not file Audit Report in Form No.56F along with return of income filed for the relevant assessment year, but such Audit Report has been filed on 01.03.2022. Therefore, when the assessee is otherwise entitled for deduction for the income merely for non-furnishing of Audit Report, deduction cannot be denied u/s.10AA of the Act. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr.CIT v. Wipro Ltd., relied upon by the Ld.CIT(A), submitted that in the said case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was on the issue of u/s.10B(8) of the Act, whereas in the present case, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s.10AA of the Act, and both provisions are operating under different facts and circumstances.

:: 9 ::

Therefore, the AO and the Ld.CIT(A) are grossly erred in following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to deny the benefit of deduction u/s.10AA of the Act. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of ITAT Delhi Benches in the case of Xavient Software Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT, Circle-3, Noida reported in 2018 (4) TMI 992.

6. The Ld.DR, on the other hand, supporting the order of the Ld.CIT(A), submitted that as per latest decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr.CIT v. Wipro Ltd., filing of Audit Report as required under the law is mandatory for claiming any deduction. Since, the assessee did not file the Audit Report as required under the provisions of Sec.10AA(8) of the Act, the AO has rightly disallowed deduction and their orders should be upheld.

The short question which is posed for consideration of this Court is, whether, for claiming exemption under Section 10B (8) of the IT Act, the assessee is required to fulfil the twin conditions, namely, (i) furnishing a declaration to the assessing officer in writing that the provisions of Section 10B (8) may not be made applicable to him; and (ii) the said declaration to be furnished before the due date of filing the return of income under sub-section (1) of Section 139 of the IT Act.

6. In the present case, the High Court as well as the ITAT have observed and held that for claiming the so-called exemption relief under Section 10B (8) of the IT Act, furnishing the declaration to the assessing officer is mandatory but furnishing the same before the due

:: 10 :: date of filing the original return of income is directory. In the present case, when the assessee submitted its original return of income under Section 139(1) of the IT Act on 31.10.2001, which was the due date for filing of the original return of income, the assessee specifically and clearly stated that it is a company and is a 100% export-oriented unit and entitled to claim exemption under Section 10B of the IT Act and therefore no loss is being carried forward. Along with the original return filed on 31.10.2001, the assessee also annexed a note to the computation of income clearly stating as above. However, thereafter the assessee filed the revised return of income under Section 139(5) of the IT Act on 23.12.2002 and filed a declaration under Section 10B (8) which admittedly was after the due date of filing of the original return under Section 139(1), i.e., 31.10.2001.

7. It is the case on behalf of the Revenue that as there was a non- compliance of twin conditions under Section 10B (8) of the IT Act, namely, the declaration under Section 10B (8) was not submitted along with the original return of income, the assessee shall not be entitled to the exemption/benefit under Section 10B (8) of the IT Act. According to the Revenue, furnishing of declaration under Section 10B (8) before the due date of filing original return of income is also mandatory. On the other hand, it is the case on behalf of the assessee, which has been accepted by the High Court, that the requirement of submission of declaration under Section 10B (8) is mandatory in nature, but the time limit within which the declaration is to be filed is directory in nature.

8. While considering the issue involved, whether the time limit within which the declaration is to be filed as provided under Section 10B (8) is mandatory or directory, Section 10B (8) is required to be referred to, which reads as under:

“10B (8) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section, where the assessee, before the due date for furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of Section 139, furnishes to the Assessing Officer a declaration in writing that the provisions of this section may not be made applicable to him, the provisions of this section shall not apply to him for any of the relevant assessment years.” On a plain reading of Section 10B (8) of the IT Act as it is, i.e., “where the assessee, before the due date for furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139, furnishes to the Assessing Officer a declaration in writing that the provisions of Section 10B may not be made applicable to him, the provisions of Section 10B shall not apply to him for any of the relevant assessment years”, we note that the wording of the Section 10B (8) is very clear and unambiguous. For claiming the benefit under Section 10B (8), the twin conditions of furnishing the declaration to the assessing officer in writing and that the same must be furnished before the due date of filing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 of the IT Act are required to be fulfilled and/or satisfied. In our view, both the conditions to be satisfied are mandatory. It cannot be said that one of the conditions would be mandatory and the other would be directory, where the words used for furnishing the declaration to the assessing officer and to be furnished before the due date of filing the original return of income under sub-

:: 11 :: section (1) of section 139 are same/similar. It cannot be disputed that in a taxing statute the provisions are to be read as they are and they are to be literally construed, more particularly in a case of exemption sought by an assessee.

9. In such a situation, filing a revised return under section 139(5) of the IT Act claiming carrying forward of losses subsequently would not help the assessee. In the present case, the assessee filed its original return under section 139(1) and not under section 139(3). Therefore, the Revenue is right in submitting that the revised return filed by the assessee under section 139(5) can only substitute its original return under Section 139(1) and cannot transform it into a return under Section 139(3), in order to avail the benefit of carrying forward or set- off of any loss under Section 80 of the IT Act. The assessee can file a revised return in a case where there is an omission or a wrong statement. But a revised return of income, under Section 139(5) cannot be filed, to withdraw the claim and subsequently claiming the carried forward or set- off of any loss. Filing a revised return under Section 139(5) of the IT Act and taking a contrary stand and/or claiming the exemption, which was specifically not claimed earlier while filing the original return of income is not permissible. By filing the revised return of income, the assessee cannot be permitted to substitute the original return of income filed under section 139(1) of the IT Act. Therefore, claiming benefit under section 10B (8) and furnishing the declaration as required under section 10B (8) in the revised return of income which was much after the due date of filing the original return of income under section 139(1) of the IT Act, cannot mean that the assessee has complied with the condition of furnishing the declaration before the due date of filing the original return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. As observed hereinabove, for claiming the benefit under section 10B (8), both the conditions of furnishing the declaration and to file the same before the due date of filing the original return of income are mandatory in nature.

11. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this Court in the case of G.M. Knitting Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee is concerned, Section 10B (8) is an exemption provision which cannot be compared

:: 12 :: with claiming an additional depreciation under section 32(1) (ii-a) of the Act. As per the settled position of law, an assessee claiming exemption has to strictly and literally comply with the exemption provisions. Therefore, the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand, while considering the exemption provisions. Even otherwise, Chapter III and Chapter VIA of the Act operate in different realms and principles of Chapter III, which deals with “incomes which do not form a part of total income”, cannot be equated with mechanism provided for deductions in Chapter VIA, which deals with “deductions to be made in computing total income”. Therefore, none of the decisions which are relied upon on behalf of the assessee on interpretation of Chapter VIA shall be applicable while considering the claim under Section 10B (8) of the IT Act.

8. The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr.CIT v. Wipro Ltd., which was rendered with reference to sec.10B(8) of the (AY 2006-07) Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd.

:: 13 ::

Act, squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The plain language used in sec.10A(5) of the Act, is also clear and unambiguous that the condition of filing Audit Report in Form No.56F along with return of income is mandatory for allowing any deduction. In this case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the assessee did not satisfy the mandatory condition prescribed u/s.10AA(8) of the Act r.w.s.10A(5) of the Act. Since, the assessee did not file the Audit Report in Form No.56F as required under the law, in our considered view, the AO has rightly disallowed deduction claimed u/s.10AA of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) after considering relevant facts has rightly upheld the additions made by the AO.

10. In this view of the matter and respectfully following the decision the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr.CIT v. Wipro Ltd., we are of the considered view that the assessee is not entitled for deduction u/s.10AA of the Act, for non-filing of Audit Report in Form No.56F as required u/s.10AA(8) of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) after considering relevant facts has rightly upheld the additions made by the AO and thus, we are inclined to uphold the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee.

11. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the AY 2016-17 is dismissed.

5. Per contra, the Ld.AR for the assessee, Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate has contended that the assessee company had filed its ROI for the subject AY along with the audit report in Form 56F on 27.11.2006.

During the reassessment proceedings, the Ld. AO, upon perusal of Form 56F, noted that the original report did not contain details regarding the year of commencement of manufacture or production and the date of initial registration in the FTZ/EPZ/SEZ. In response, the AR of the company submitted an addendum to Form 56F as an annexure, furnishing the requisite particulars, namely, the year of commencement of production and the date of initial registration in the relevant zone. It is submitted that only these supplementary details were included in the (AY 2006-07) Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd. annexure, while all other particulars relevant for claiming the deduction remained unchanged and were consistent with those furnished in the original audit report. The said addendum, dated 25.03.2013, was duly signed and submitted by the audit firm, M/s. Deloitte Haskins & Sells. This addendum was placed on record prior to the issuance of the reassessment order dated 31.03.2013 and formed part of the compliance during the reassessment proceedings. The Ld. AO disregarded the significance of the information furnished and raised a technical objection regarding the absence of a designated member's signature, without giving due consideration to the substance and relevance of the details provided through the addendum. The Ld. AO failed to acknowledge that the addendum was clearly issued under the seal and sign of the audit firm, M/s. Deloitte Haskins & Sells, registered with Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, thereby establishing the authenticity and formal nature of the submission. He further submitted that the Ld. AO ought to have appreciated that Form 56F was duly available during the reassessment proceedings, along with all the necessary details required to claim the deduction u/s 10A of the Act. However, without adequately considering the above facts, the Ld. AO erred in disallowing the deduction u/s 10A of the Act. The appellant’s counsel respectfully submits that the audit report in Form 56F was duly filed along with the original return of income. During the reassessment proceedings, only supplementary (AY 2006-07) Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd. information specifically, the date of commencement of production and details of registration was furnished by way of an addendum. He also pleaded that the Ld. AO failed to appreciate that there were no changes whatsoever in the quantum of deduction claimed u/s 10A of the Act as compared to the original audit report filed with the return of income.

Instead, the Ld. AO placed undue emphasis on mere technicalities to reject the claim, despite the substantive compliance with the requirements of the Act. He relied upon the following decisions:

• Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of in the case of CIT vs G.M. Knitting Industries (P) Ltd [2015] 376 ITR 456 • Hon'ble ITAT Bench E of Mumbai in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Tata Sons (P.) Ltd. [2025] 176 taxmann.com 364 (Mumbai Trib.)[26-06-2025] • Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Astrotech Steels (P.) Ltd. [2025] 175 taxmann.com 285 (Madras) [03-06-2025] • Hon'ble Delhi High court in th case of CIT vs Axis Computers (India) P Ltd [2009] 178 taxman 143 • Hon'ble Tribunal of Ahmadabad in the case of Deputy Commissioner OF Income Tax (Assessment) V. Samir Diamond Manufacturing (P.) LTD [1997] 69TTJ 1 He also relied on the decision of co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT v. Tata Sons (P) Ltd., reported in [2025] 176 taxmann.com 364 (Mumbai) wherein the Tribunal held as under:

7. We have heard both the parties at length and also perused the relevant facts brought on record. It is an undisputed fact that assessee has opted for new tax regime u/s.115BBA in the A.Y.2022-23 and also filed requisite Form 10-IC on 21/11/2022. While processing the return, CPC / ld. AO has accepted the new tax regime u/s.115BBA. Once Form 10-IC has been filed in the preceding assessment year which is followed in the subsequent assessment years also, then there is no reason to deny any benefit of Section 115BBA. The intimation u/s. 143(1) for A.Y.2023-24 on the ground that Form 10-IC was not filed or which was filed later on the demand of the ld. AO, then it was found that it was signed by other person. It (AY 2006-07) Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd. has been clarified that, in the login of e-file income tax portals, tax payers can submit details of its key persons on the portal and register their respective digital signature. The tax payer has to sign any return / form after selecting key person as required under the law and designated as a principal contact as only one person can sign the form. The assessee has registered three key persons on the income tax portal, i.e. (i) Mr Chandrasekaran Natarajan ("Chairman"), (ii) Mr Eruch Kapadia ("CFO"), and (iii) Mr Saurabh Agarwal ("Director). It has been demonstrated before us that if uploaded form is downloaded today, then all the contents of the downloaded form will remain the same except the name of signatory person will changes automatically and the name and PAN of the key person who at the time of login is the principal contact trying to download the form. This fact has also been accepted by the LD. DR that this is system generated the change that once signatory part of the downloaded Form undergoes a change the "downloaded acknowledgment" remains constant with the original verifier's PAN even when the principal contact is changed on the portal to re- download the Form 10-IC. Thus, if the Form 10-IC uploaded on 21/11/2022 is downloaded today under all the three different profiles, i.e., all three key person being taken as principal contact, all the contents of the form will remain the same but the name and PAN of the person who has digitally signed the form undergoes change. Assessee has also submitted both the downloaded from wherein Profile Chairman, Profile CFO, Profile Director has been given and also attached the complete Form 10-IC alongwith acknowledgements downloaded upon changing / modifying the principal contact details on the Income Tax portal. Thus, there was not infirmity and ld. AO has erred in denying the benefit of new tax regime u/s.115BBA. Accordingly, order of the ld. CIT (A) is confirmed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

5. On perusal of the Form 56F dated 27.11.06 filed by the assessee in response to the notice issued u/s. 142(1), it is seen that the year of commencement of manufacture or production and the date of initial registration in FTZ/EPZ/SEZ has not been furnished. As the report of the Chartered Accountant is silent on the no. of years for which 10A has been claimed and the year in which the assessee has started making the claim u/s. 10A, the report was defective and hence was proposed to be rejected. When this was put forth to the AR, a fresh addendum to the report has been submitted vide letter dated 25/03/2013 furnishing the date of commencement and initial registration. The same is stated to be January 2000. The same was not however certified by any Chartered Accountant as required by the Act. The assessee has not fulfilled the requirements for claim of deduction u/s 10A. A defective report cannot be considered to fulfill the legal requirements of a statutory report. In the present case, the original report of the CA was found defective and the same was informed to the AR. The purported addendum to this original report in Form 56F is not signed by a Chartered Accountant as mandated by the provisions of the Act. It is simply signed as "Deloitte Haskins and Sells". This is a not a valid verification of the report u/s 56F. The report in Form 56F is therefore treated as defective and hence rejected. The claim u/s (AY 2006-07) Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd. :: 17 ::

10A based on this report is also rejected. In view of the above, the deduction claimed u/s 10A is rejected.

7. It is clear that the AO treated Form 36 as defective which is a curable defect. However, it is submitted before us that proper 56F was duly signed and filed with the AO itself and there is no material change in both forms which can cause prejudice to the Revenue. So, assessee has duly complied with the requirement of filing Form 56F. Respectfully following the decisions of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Astrotech Steels (P.) Ltd. And Tata Sons (P.) Ltd, we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue and upheld the order of the ld.CIT(A).

Order pronounced on the 08th day of January, 2026, in Chennai.