ANAND FOODS,DEHRADUN vs. ITO WARD 2(2)(1), KASHIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 141/DDN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 January 2026AY 2021-22Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. Manish Agarwal (Accountant Member)2 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the requirement to file Form 10CCB by the due date is directory, not mandatory, citing relevant case law. It directed the assessing authority to verify the facts as per the filed Form 10CCB, providing the assessee with three opportunities for hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Anand Foods, claimed a deduction under Section 80IB(11A) of Rs. 79,97,988, which was disallowed by lower authorities due to the late filing of Form 10CCB. The Form 10CCB was filed on November 2, 2022, the same day the CPC processed the return under Section 143(1).

What were the issues?

The key legal issue was whether the late filing of Form 10CCB should lead to the disallowance of the Section 80IB(11A) deduction, specifically if the filing requirement is mandatory or directory.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80IB(11A),Section 154,Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN BENCH, DEHRADUN

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

Hearing: 12.01.2026Pronounced: 12.01.2026

ORDER

Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

1.

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2021-22, arises against the Addl./JCIT(A), Mysore’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1077083626(1) dated 10.06.2025, in proceedings u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive grievance that both the learned lower authorities erred in law and on facts in disallowing it’s section 80IB(11A) deduction claim of Rs.79,97,988/-, we notice that the sole reason thereof appears to be non-filing/submission of it’s Form 10CCB tax audit report on or before the prescribed due date.

4.

Faced with this situation, the Revenue could hardly dispute that the assessee had filed/uploaded the above Form 10CCB audit report on 02.11.2022 i.e. the date of CPC’s section 143(1) processing itself. Case law CIT Vs. Xavier Kelavani Mandal (P.) Ltd. (2014) 41 taxmann.com 184 (Guj.) has already settled the issue that such a compliance is only directory than mandatory in nature. We thus accept the assessee’s arguments raised herein for statistical purpose and direct the learned assessing authority to verify all the relevant facts as per it’s Form 10CCB tax audit report, within three effective opportunities of hearing. Ordered accordingly.

More judgments on Section 80IB(11A)

All 71 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80IB(11A) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →