Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's claim for deduction under section 80IE was denied by the AO-CPC and upheld by the JCIT(A). The denial was based on the technical ground that the audit report in Form No. 10CCB was not filed separately by the specified deadline for Assessment Year 2019-20, despite being filed before the processing under section 143(1).
Held
The Tribunal held that for AY 2019-20, the unamended section 143(1)(a) did not include Chapter VI deductions, such as section 80IE, under its purview for processing of returns. Therefore, the denial of deduction was incorrect, and the AO-CPC was directed to allow the deduction claim with consequential adjustments.
Key Issues
Whether a deduction under Section 80IE can be denied solely for delayed filing of Form 10CCB under the unamended Section 143(1)(a) for Assessment Year 2019-20.
Sections Cited
250, 80IE, 143(1), 143(1)(a), 143(1)(a)(v), 115JD, 234C, 80AC
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, GUWAHATI BENCH, GUWAHATI
Assessment Year: 2019-20 Makhanlal Gattani, Supreme Power Industries, A.T. Road, Marwari Thakurwari, Jorhat, Assam - 785001 [PAN: ACQPG7486C] .................…...……………....Appellant vs. ITO, Ward-1, Jorhat, Income Tax Office, Tarajan, Jorhat, Assam - 785001 ...…..…............................ Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Sanjay Mody, FCA Department represented by : Kausik Ray, JCIT Date of concluding the hearing : 13.08.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 21.08.2025
ORDER
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
The present appeal emanates from order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), dated 10.03.2025, passed by Ld. Additional/ Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai (hereafter “the Addl./JCIT(A]. 1.1 In this case, the Ld. AO-CPC has denied the deduction u/s 80IE of the Act on the ground that audit report in Form No. 10CCB was not separately filed.
1.2 The assessee carried this matter in appeal where he could not succeed on the basis of the following finding:
Makhanlal Gattani “4.4 The facts of the case in the light of the arguments made by the Appellant are carefully considered. It is an admitted fact that the audit report in form no.10CCB has been filed even before the date of processing u/s.143(1) by the CPC. The claim of deduction has been denied only on technical grounds and not on the merits of the claim. 4.5 The case laws relied upon by the Appellant, the paramount of which being the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. GM Knitting Industries Pvt Ltd reported in 376 ITR 456 (SC) were all rendered when the electronic filing of ITR and audit reports were not in vague and hence do not find application in the current scenario and context. 4.6 Therefore, in order to claim exemption u/s.80-IE, the conditions specified have to be necessarily complied. It remains an undisputed fact that the audit report in form no.10CCB was not filed before the time limit specified for the AY 2019-20. Therefore, the inconsistency in the claim is apparent from the return of income which was unaccompanied by an Audit Report duly submitted before the specified date. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld’ Asst. Director of Income tax, CPC was correct in undertaking the adjustment and hence the corresponding computation made by the CPC is upheld.” 1.3 Further aggrieved, the assessee in appeal with the following grounds:
“1. For that the learned Addl./Joint CIT(A) [JCIT(A)] vide appellate order dated 10.03.2025 ought to have hold that the impugned intimation dated 10.08.2020 issued under section 143(1) by the learned AO is bad in law, facts and procedure.
For that the Id. JCIT(A) was not justified in not holding that the Id. AO was not justified in not allowing vide intimation dated 10.08.2020 statutorily allowable deduction under section 80- IE of the Act of Rs. 46,25,653/- merely on the ground that audit report in form no. 10CCB was uploaded on 06.11.2019 with delay.
3. For that the Id. JCIT(A) has erred in contemptuously disregarding the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited before him on a flimsy ground, without bringing on record any amendment in substantial provision of law and merely on the ground of change in procedure and that too without allowing any opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
For that the ld. JCIT(A) erred in contemptuously disregarding the various decisions of the Hon'ble ITAT, which is higher in judicial hierarchy, without giving any reason and without pointing out any distinguishable feature and when the said decisions also pertained to period of electronic uploading of forms. Such unreasoned and non-speaking order is bad in law.
For that the Id. JCIT(A) has erred in not allowing any opportunity of personal hearing to the assessee and passing the impugned order is utter disregard to the principles of natural justice and statutory provisions. For that the impugned appellate order is also bad in law being unreasoned and a non- speaking order. For that, alternatively, without prejudice to all the above grounds, the Id. JCIT(A) ought to have hold that the AO was not justified in not allowing 2 Makhanlal Gattani statutorily allowable credit under section 115JD of the Act in respect of brought forward AMT credit.
For that the Id. JCIT(A) was not justified in not holding that charging interest u/s 234C of the Act at Rs. 39,030/- was not in accordance with the law. For that the aforesaid charge of interest being not in accordance with the law, the same is liable to be deleted in its entirety.
For that the appellant craves leave of your honour to take additional ground or grounds of appeal
or to amend or resign any ground(s) of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.”
2. Before us, the Ld. AR argued with the help of a paper book through which a case has been attempted to be made out that the filing of audit report in Form No. 10CCB was directory and not mandatory. For this purpose, the Ld. AR relied on the cases of G.M. Knitting Industries Pvt. Ltd. reported in 376 ITR 456 (SC); the case of AKS Alloys (P) Ltd., reported in 376 ITR 456 (SC) and several ITAT cases. The Ld. AR argued that Form No. 10CCB could be filed before assessment proceedings and it would be valid for that reason.
2.1 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of authorities below.
We have carefully considered the submission of Ld. AR/DR and have gone through the documents before us including the orders of AO/Addl./JCIT(A). It is pertinent to note that an amendment to section 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act was brought in w.e.f. 01.04.2021, to include the entire set of provisions of Chapter-VI under the purview of processing of returns. Thus, effectively all provision of section 80IE of the Act, even section 80AC of the Act, would apply for this purpose. However, the present case pertains to AY 2019-20 when such provisions were excluded from processing. Accordingly, there is no hesitation in holding that the deduction u/s 80IE of the Act could not have been denied to the assessee under the unamended section 143(1)(a) of the Act for AY 2019-20. Accordingly, the AO-CPC is directed to allow the deduction claim u/s 80IE of the Act, with consequential working u/s 115JD of the Act and also charging of interest. The assessee gets relief accordingly.