NAICO INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PVT LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ITO, CORPORATE, WARD 2(4), KOCHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the assessee's submission that Form 56F was uploaded on 29.10.2017 and that there were technical difficulties in uploading it initially. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed its return of income and claimed a deduction under Section 10AA. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction because Form 56F was not filed along with the return of income. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order.
What were the issues?
Whether the disallowance of deduction under Section 10AA was justified due to the alleged non-filing of Form 56F, considering the assessee's claim of technical difficulties and prior upload.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH
O R D E R
PER AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2017-18 is directed against the order dated 28.07.2023 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1. The orders passed by the authorities below are opposed to law, facts and circumstances of the case. Hence illegal and unsustainable.
2. The ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order passed by the Assessing Officer without properly appreciating the contention that the appellant had filed Form 56F on 29.10.2017 and that later on verification it was not found in the officer web site of the Respondent-Department.
The authorities below failed to note that the Form No. 56F filed on 25.02.2019 is the copy of Form 56F already uploaded on 29.10.2017.
Naico Information Technology Services Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2017-18 4. The authorities below erred in not accepting the copy of 56F filed on 29.10.2017 and in disallowing the claim of exemption made by the appellant in the facts and circumstances of the case.
5. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) ought to have independently considered and accepted the copy of Form 56F filed on 29.10.2017 and deleted the addition of Rs. 48,58,390/- made by the Assessing Officer.
6. The authorities below ought to have borne in mind that the report in Form 56F could be uploaded only after incorporating the digital signature. The authorities erred in rejecting the copy of Form No. 56F for want of signature.
The authorities ought to have taken a lenient view in this case, as there was no lapse on the part of the Appellant/Assessee in filing the audit report in Form 56F along with the return of income, as required u/s 10AA(8) of the Act.”
Fact in brief is that return of income declaring total income of Rs. 48,58,390/- was filed on 24.10.2017. The case was subject to scrutiny assessment and notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 21.08.2018. During the course of assessment, the AO noticed that audit report was filed on 01.09.2017 however Form No. 56F was not filed on 01.09.2017 or along with return of income, therefore, assessing officer has disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 10AA of the Act.
3. The assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee reiterating the fact as stated by the assessing officer.
Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. Without reiterating the fact as discussed supra in this order, the assessee in its submission before the ld. CIT(A) has submitted that Form 56F was filed during the initial period of computerization and same was uploaded on 29.09.2017 and Form No. 56 filed on 25.02.2019 was the copy of Form 56 which was already uploaded on 29.10.2017. However, the ld. CIT(A) has not considered this fact that Form No. 56F was already filed on Naico Information Technology Services Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2017-18 29.10.2017. The assessee has further reported that there was technical problem in uploading the Form No. 56F as the same could not be uploaded only after incorporating the digital signature. We find that ld. CIT(A) has not considered of these technical difficulties faced by the assessee in uploading Form 54F at the initial stages of computerization of process of uploading such form.
In the light of the above fact and finding, we restore this case to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for deciding on merit, therefore, this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 18.11.2024.
More judgments on Section 10AA
- Quantium Analytics Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 16(3), HyderabadITA 1336/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2021-22
- Ab Knowledge Systems, Pune vs DCIT, PuneITA 92/PUN/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
- ACIT-Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore vs Eygbs(India) Private Limited, BangaloreITA 1886/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2026AY 2012-13
- ACIT 15(1)(2), Mumbai vs Galaxy Surfactants Limited, MumbaiITA 6984/MUM/2025[2011-2012]Status: Disposed15 Sept 2026AY 2011-2012
- Genpact Infrastructure (Hyderabad) Pvt… vs ITO, New DelhiITA 2055/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: Disposed9 Sept 2026AY 2009-10
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- J.M.Swamy vs. Government Of INDIAKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
