MAHLE ANAND THERMAL SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 9, PUNE

The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal :

It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee has filed its adjournment request reading as under :

Suffice to say, there could be hardly any dispute that the assessee’s sole substantive grievance herein seeks to claim it’s sec.35(2AB) weighted deduction claim rejected in 4 ITA.No.247/PUN./2024 both the learned lower authorities respective order(s). The assessee is fair enough indeed in it’s foregoing adjournment averments that the prescribed authority i.e., Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (“DSIR”) has already rejected it’s application “Form-3CL” on March 18, 2024. Faced with this situation, we are of the considered view in light of Rule6(7A)(b)(ii) that quantification of the impugned expenditure by the above prescribed authority, for the purpose of claiming sec.35(2AB) relief, indeed forms a mandatory condition from 01.07.2016 onwards relevant to assessment year 2017-2018 before us. We thus see no merit in the assessee’s foregoing adjournment request at this stage in very terms subject to all just exceptions.

Learned counsel at this stage fairly informed us that the assessee has filed it’s sec.154 rectification before the lower appellate authority regarding alternative claim of deduction u/sec.35(1)(iv) r.w.s.37 of the Act. He sought to buttress the point that the learned NFAC has nowhere adjudicated the same. Without commenting anything on merits, we conclude in this factual backdrop that it shall be very much open to the assessee to pursue it’s above stated sec.154 rectification, if any, as per law in very terms. Ordered accordingly.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.