SEZ export unit's s.10AA deduction claim amid Form 56F timing and return filed u/s139(4); denial overturned

The dominant issue was whether deduction under s. 10AA could be denied for alleged late filing of Form 56F and filing of return under s. 139(4). The Tribunal held that Form 56F was furnished within the CBDT-extended time up to 31.12.2023, so CPC erred in treating it as belated; consequently, denial of s. 10AA on that ground was unsustainable and the appellate authority's allowance of the claim was affirmed. Relying on earlier ITAT precedent for AY 2018-19, it further held that s. 10AA does not mandatorily require filing the return within the due date under s. 139(1); the deduction remained allowable and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

(i) Whether deduction claimed under section 10AA could be disallowed in processing under section 143(1) on the ground that the prescribed audit report in Form 56F was not filed "within time", where the form was filed within the extended time granted by the CBDT.

(ii) Whether deduction under section 10AA for the relevant assessment year could be denied solely because the return was furnished under section 139(4) (i.e., beyond the due date under section 139(1)), in light of the statutory proviso introducing a due-date condition with effect from a later assessment year.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (i): Disallowance of section 10AA deduction in section 143(1) processing for alleged non/late filing of Form 56F

Legal framework (as discussed by the Court): The Court examined the fact of filing of Form 56F and the effect of the CBDT's extension of time for filing the online Form 56F up to 31.12.2023. The controversy arose because the processing system treated Form 56F as belated and consequently denied the deduction under section 10AA.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court found, on the record, that Form 56F had been filed on 27.11.2023, which fell within the extended time permitted by the CBDT. It held that the processing authority's disallowance proceeded on an incorrect factual premise that the form was filed beyond time, and noted that the extension had not been appropriately reflected in the processing outcome. The Court accepted that the appellate authority had correctly appreciated these facts and therefore allowed the claim.

Conclusion: Since Form 56F was filed within the extended period, the disallowance of section 10AA deduction on the ground of late/non-filing of Form 56F was unsustainable, and the appellate relief was upheld.

Issue (ii): Denial of section 10AA deduction for filing return under section 139(4) (late return) for the relevant assessment year

Legal framework (as discussed by the Court): The Court addressed the contention that the deduction was denied because the return was filed beyond the due date under section 139(1). It considered that a proviso inserting a condition that no deduction shall be allowed unless the return is furnished on or before the due date under section 139(1) was made effective from a later date (applicable from assessment year 2024-25 onwards).

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court followed the reasoning of a coordinate bench decision (as relied upon in the order) that, prior to the effective date of the inserted proviso, there was no statutory mandate in section 10AA requiring filing of the return within the section 139(1) due date as a pre-condition for the deduction. Therefore, for the assessment year under consideration, deduction under section 10AA could not be denied merely because the return was furnished under section 139(4).

Conclusion: For the relevant assessment year, late filing of the return under section 139(4) did not, by itself, justify denial of deduction under section 10AA; the later-inserted proviso could not be applied to deny the claim for that year.

Final outcome: The Court declined to interfere with the appellate authority's decision granting relief, and dismissed the challenge to the allowance of deduction under section 10AA.

---