TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 511
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orted by various judicial pronouncements. It may please be allowed. 4. That, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has wrongly calculated tax without considering deduction under chapter VI A amounting Rs. 5,61,39,920 that is to be allowed as it is claimed in accordance with Income Tax Act. It may please be allowed. 5. That, the assessee craves leave to argue on any other question of law and/or facts at the time of hearing of this appeal." 3. Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee company is engaged in running a power generation unit and is eligible to claim deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iv) of the Act 61, and accordingly has filed form 10CCB (audit report), but the same has been filed (uploaded) belatedly in the portal on 3rd April, 2021. The assessee filed original return of income on 31st October, 2018, (within due date) claiming the said deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iv), amounting to Rs. 5,61,39,920/-, (the return being subsequently revised on 30th March, 2019 claiming additional depreciation), and the same was processed u/s 143(1) on 20th February, 2020, by CPC, Bangalore, by disallowing the claim u/s 80IA(4)(iv) of Rs. 5,61,39,920/-, (in absence of any audit report i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntimation u/s 143(1) is not curtailed by this order of dismissal." 6. Now, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal on the ground contained in the memorandum of appeal. 7. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that in the instant case, the ld. CIT(A) was not legally justified in observing that since no appeal has been filed against the assessment order u/s 143(1) of the Act passed by CPC Bangalore disallowing the deduction claimed u/s 80IA(4)(iv), the said matter cannot be adjudicated in the present appellate proceedings because this appeal is filed against the order of assessment u/s 143(3). 7.1 On this issue the ld. AR explained that the date of processing u/s 143(1) (a) dated 20th February 2020, by CPC, Bangalore, was after the date of selection of the case for scrutiny vide issue of statutory notice u/s 143(2) dated 28th September 2019, for complete scrutiny specifying the issue of deduction claimed for industrial undertaking u/s 80IA, which means the very same issue was already open before the assessing authority in proceedings u/s 143(2), and was already under consideration in scrutiny proceedings and as such the same issue could not be a subject matter of disallowance u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase of CIT vs. Contimeters Electrical P. Ltd (2009) 317 ITR 249 / 178 taxman 422[Delhi]. 9.2 Regarding the issue pointed out by the AO in the assessment order ( page - 7) that the judgments cited by the assessee relates to the earlier era, prior to electronic filing, and in support the AO has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Benches in the case of Pradeep Kumar Batra vs. DCIT in ITA No. 6384/Del/2019 dated 23.10.2020, regarding the fact that all earlier judgments relied upon, do not pertain to the era of electronic filing of returns and documents and therefore, the same does not apply to the fact of the case. 9.3 On this issue, the ld. AR referred to the judgment of the jurisdictional Amritsar Bench of the tribunal in the case of Vinod Kumar Grover in ITA No. 141/Asr/2024 dated 22.07.2024 ( Asst year 2017-18) to point out that the Hon'ble bench on an identical issue has followed the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.M. Knitting Industries Pvt Ld.(supra). 10. Apart from that, he further referred to the judgment of the Kolkata Tribunal in the case of Surendra Steels ITA 78/Kol/2022 (Asst year 2019-20) dated 20.03.2022 and also the judgment of the D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issue where the assessee failed to attach the audit report of claim deduction along with the Return of income. That being only a procedural lapse, the Court held that the assessee cannot be non-suited on the said ground. The decision of the High Court of Delhi in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Centimeter Electricals Private Limited, 2009 178, taxmann.com, 422 (Delhi) and the decision of this Court in the case of Murali Export House vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 1999, 238 ITR 257 (Cal.) were referred to. Thus, the Tribunal rightly decided the issue in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 11. Respectfully following the decisions of various High courts and the coordinate benches of the tribunal, in the matter, we hold that the submission of form 10CCB is directory in nature and not mandatory and it is sufficient compliance if the said report is filed with the AO, before completion of assessment, which is an admitted fact in the instant case. As such the assessee is entitled to the claim of deduction u/s 80IB of the Act 61, as per claim in his return of income, and the same is allowed. 13. On this issue raised by the ld. CIT(A) that in the instant c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent order both an intimation u/s 143(1) and an assessment order u/s 143(3) can co-exists and section 246A confirms that both are appealable before the ld. CIT(A). Distinguishes assessee's contention that intimation u/s 143(1) merges with the assessment order u/s 143(3) and opined that merger depends on whether the adjustment made in the intimation is also a part of the scrutiny assessment and if so the adjustment merges with the assessment order which shall be subjected to review of the appellate authorities. 14.1 In the instant case, the adjustment made u/s 143(1) relating to disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80IA for non filing of audit report, has merged with the scrutiny assessment vide notice u/s 143(2), the said claim for deduction being one of the main issue for which the case has been selected for scrutiny, and the said issue of claim u/s 80IA(4)(iv) has been exclusively adjudicated and discussed in the body of the assessment order, being one of the reason for selections. 14.2 As such, we hold that for all practical purposes the subject matter of adjustment made in the intimation u/s 143(1) being the same as the issue of selection of the case for scrutiny is already m....