ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR, JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD. , JODHPUR

PDF

ITA 540/JODH/2024Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 July 2025AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, HON'BLE (Vice President), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)1 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

Facts

The revenue filed an appeal against the deletion of an addition made on account of disallowance of deduction claimed under section 35AD. The primary ground for appeal was the assessee's failure to file the audit report in Form 10CCB within the prescribed time limit. However, the issue at hand revolved around the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under section 148.

Held

The Tribunal noted that the reassessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2015-16 were initiated through notices issued after April 1, 2021. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal, the Tribunal held that such notices are required to be dropped as they would not fall for completion within the period prescribed under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. Consequently, the impugned notice and related proceedings were set aside, and the assessment order was quashed.

Key Issues

Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 were valid, considering the dates of the notices issued in light of subsequent legal pronouncements and relaxations for completion of assessments.

Sections Cited

35AD, 80-1A, 148, 139

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH (Virtual

Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, HONBLE & DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HONBLE

PER DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, A.M.: The captioned appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order of the Id. National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC/CIT(A)], Delhi dated 03.05.2024 in respect of Assessment Year 2015-16 where the Department has raised following grounds:

Whether the Id. CIT(A) is justified in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 74,98,49,523/- made on account of disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 35AD r.w.s. 80-1A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by holding that the assessee has fulfilled all the conditions for claiming deduction u/s 35AD, by not appreciating the fact the assessee has failed to comply with statutory requirement of provision of section 35AD(7) read with section 801A(7) to file audit report in form 10 CCB within prescribed time limit to claim deduction u/s 35AD.

2.2.

Whether the Ide CIT(A) has erred in observing that in the case of CIT vs. G.M. Knitting Industries (P). Ltd. 376 ITR 456, the Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that even though necessary certificate in Form 10 CCB along with return of income had not been filed but same was filed before final order of assessment was made, then in that case, the claim of the assessee cannot be disallowed, whereas in the above decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court has concurred with the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the Officer may consider the same and examine the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 80J on the basis of the such report. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that in the present case the assessee has failed to offer satisfactory explanation for his failure to submit the audit report in time.

Whether the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in holding (that the assessee has been entitled the form 10CCB with return of income filed u/s 148 of the IT Act, 1961 and going by the wordings of' the section 148 which states that the provisions of the Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if such return were a return required to be furnished under section 139. With the above reasoning, whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in assuming that in re-assessment cases u/s 148, the assessee gets extended time limit for compliance of statutory requirements under IT Act 1961 which are otherwise barred by limitation.