2026 (1) TMI 1413 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction under section 10A Form 56F compliance: curable defect, substantial compliance leads to dismissal of Revenue appeal

Deduction under tax incentive was contested on the ground of a defective statutory form. The adjudicator found the defect in the initially submitted form ... Deduction u/s 10A - Denial of claim as filling a defective Form 56F - whether filing of Form No.56F is mandatory and not directory? - CIT(A) allowed deduction - HELD THAT:- AO treated Form 36 as defective which is a curable defect. However, it is submitted before us that proper 56F was duly signed and filed with the AO itself and there is no material change in both forms which can cause prejudice to the Revenue. So, assessee has duly complied with the requirement of filing Form 56F. Respectfully following the decisions of Astrotech Steels (P.) Ltd. [2025 (6) TMI 417 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] And Tata Sons (P.) Ltd. [2025 (7) TMI 427 - ITAT MUMBAI] we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue and upheld the order of the ld.CIT(A). Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Issues: Whether failure to furnish a properly signed audit report in Form No.56F along with the return of income (or defects in the filed Form 56F) precludes allowance of deduction under section 10AA read with section 10A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.Analysis: The Tribunal examined whether the Form 56F filed by the assessee satisfied the statutory condition of furnishing an accountant's audit report in the prescribed form along with the return of income as required by section 10A(5) (made applicable to section 10AA by section 10AA(8)). The Court considered the binding pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pr. CIT v. Wipro Ltd. holding that filing the requisite document within the time and manner prescribed for claiming an exemption/deduction is mandatory and not merely directory. The Tribunal reviewed the facts that the assessee's Form 56F as before the AO/reassessment proceedings lacked certain particulars and an addendum was later filed; the AO treated the original report as defective and rejected the claim. The Bench also considered competing authorities and subsequently-applicable decisions relied upon by the parties, and evaluated whether the defect was curable and whether substantive compliance existed so as to avoid denial of the deduction.Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the claim for deduction under section 10AA cannot be allowed where the statutory condition of furnishing the audit report in Form No.56F along with the return is not satisfied. The requirement under section 10A(5) (as applied to section 10AA by section 10AA(8)) is mandatory. Consequently, the disallowance of the deduction made in the intimation under section 143(1) is sustainable and the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed.Final Conclusion: The legal effect is that statutory conditions requiring filing of the prescribed audit report with the return are to be treated as mandatory for claiming the specified deduction; non-compliance permits disallowance of the deduction under the Income-tax Act.Ratio Decidendi: Where a deduction or exemption statute expressly requires furnishing an accountant's report in a prescribed form along with the return, that requirement is mandatory (not directory) and failure to furnish the report in the prescribed manner with the return disentitles the assessee to the deduction.