TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 583
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... u/s. 80IA of the Act. 2. That the appellant craves the leave to make any addition, alteration and modification of ground or grounds during the course of hearing of the appeal." 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an entity which is eligible to claim deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act in respect of wind power plants. As per the provisions of section 80IA(7) of the Act, the assessee was supposed to get its accounts audited and furnish the audit report in form 10CCB on or before specified date as referred to in sec. 44AB of the Act. As per the relevant provisions of sec. 44AB of the Act, the specified date would mean the date, one month prior to the date of furnishing of the return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act. In this case, the assessee filed return of income on 07.11.2022 which was within the due date i.e. upto 07.11.2022 as extended by the CBDT vide Circular No. 20/2022 dated 26.10.2022. The Tax Audit Report in Form 10CCB was filed by the assessee on 11.10.2022 which was thus, with the delay of four days as the specified date as per section 44AB would fall on 07.10.2022. The CPC while processing the return u/s. 143(1) of the Act, denied the claim of ded....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion made by the assessee. It is submitted by assessee that the instant issue is purely debatable in nature and the denial of the claim of deduction u/s. 80IA of Rs. 5,88,89,613/- was beyond the scope of the adjustments provided in section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. 5.1.4. The following adjustments are provided in section 143(1)(a): (i) any arithmetical error in the return; (ii) an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return; (iii) disallowance of loss claimed, if return of the previous year for which set off of loss is claimed was furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; (iv) disallowance of expenditure or increase in income indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income the return; (v) disallowance of deduction claimed under section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading "C-Deductions in respect of certain incomes", if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; or (vi) addition of income appearing in form 26AS or Fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ost identical facts and circumstances and in relation to the assessment year 2022-23 itself, wherein the denial of deduction was made by the CPC while processing the return u/s. 143(1) of the Act itself. The Coordinate Bench, while deliberating upon the relevant provisions of the Act and also placing reliance on the various case laws, has held that since the assessee has duly filed the Form 10CCB much before the date when the return of the assessee was processed by the CPC u/s. 143(1) of the Act and the assessee was also claiming and was allowed deduction u/s. 80IA in the earlier assessment years then, there was no justification on the part of the CPC to deny the deduction for small delay in filing the audit report in Form 10CCB. The relevant part of the order of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Desai Infra Projects (I) Private Limited (supra) is reproduced as under: "6. We have heard rival submissions made by both the sides and perused the material available on record. We find the assessee in it's return of income had claimed deduction of Rs. 3,42,22,760/- u/sec.80IA(4)(i) of the Act, which was denied by the CPC in the intimation passed u/sec.143(1) of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case of GM Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd., (supra), wherein the Apex Court had an occasion to examine the action of Bombay High Court holding that if Form 3AA is filed before the assessment proceedings culminated, then additional depreciation shall be allowed and such a claim should not be denied only because assessee did not furnish Form 3AA along with return of income. And the Hon'ble Apex Court, affirmed the action of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay as well as tagged along matter wherein Revenue challenged the action of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in AKS Alloys Pvt. Ltd (supra) and the Civil Appeal of department was dismissed, which means the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court has been affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, and is binding precedent that if assessee had filed the Form 10CCB before the assessment proceedings culminate, then the deduction claimed u/s.80IB ought not to be denied on the reason that assessee did not file Form 10CCB along with Return of Income (ROI). We also note the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in M/s. Wipro Ltd. (supra) was in the context of that assessee's [Wipro] claim of exemption under Chapter III, in contra-distinction to the claim rais....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inal order of assessment, the assessee was entitled to claim deduction under section 80JJAA. The relevant observations of the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal from para-2 onwards read as under : "2. The short issue involved in this appeal is as to whether the late filing of audit report in Form 10DA would disentitle the assessee from claiming deduction u/s.80JJAA of the Act, when the said Form 100A was available to the Ld. AO at the time of assessment proceedings. The assessee in this case filed the Form 100A on 27.10.2023 as against the due date of 30.09.2023 but, the same was available to the AO at the time of processing the return of income as the notice u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Act was issued by the CPC to the assessee on 23.11.2023. 3. The issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V. G. M Knitting bahotries (P) Ltd. (2016/12 SCC 272/[2016] 71 taxmann.com 35/376 ITR 456 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, even though it is necessary to file certificate in Form 10CCB along with the return of income, but even if the same has not been filed with the return of income, but the same was filed before th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CIT(A) is, therefore, set aside and the AO is directed to grant deduction to the assessee u/s. 80JJAA of the Act as claimed. The appeal of the assessee stands allowed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed." 6.4. Since the assessee in the instant case has admittedly filed the audit report in Form-10CCB prior to the processing of the return, therefore, respectfully following the decisions cited (supra), we are of the considered opinion that assessee cannot be denied deduction u/sec.80IA(4) of the Act. Accordingly, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is reversed and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed." 6. Reliance in this respect can also be placed on the decision of the ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Sanjay Kukreja Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 652/Del/2023 dated 30.01.2024 (AY 2019-20), wherein the coordinate bench of the Tribunal, while relying upon the various case laws, has held that the filing of the Form 10CCB on or before the specified date was only directory and not mandatory. The relevant part of the order of the coordinate Bench of ITAT, Delhi in the case of S. Kukr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... took the view that the word 'shall' which occurs in section 80J(6A) be read as 'may' and that the requirement of filing of an audit report along with the return was only to be taken as directory in nature. The Gujarat High Court took the view that in case the audit report is submitted at any time before the framing of the assessment, there would be substantial compliance with the provisions of Section 80J(6A). The Tribunal also relied on the decision of the Madras High Court in CIT vs. A.N. Arunachalam, 208 ITR 481 (Mad.), which, again, while considering the provisions of Section 80J(6A), took the same view as that of the Gujarat High Court. We notice that there are other decisions of other Courts taking the same view. The decisions being, CIT vs. Shivanand Electricals (1994) 209 ITR 63 (Bombay); Zenith Processing Mills vs. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 721 (Guj.); Cit vs. Jayant Patel (2001) 248 ITR 199 (Mad.) and CIT vs. Mahalaxmi Rice Factory (2007) 294 ITR 631 (P&H). In view of this long line on decisions of various High Courts in considering the provisions of Section 80J(6A) which are similar to the provisions of Section 80IA(7), we feel that the Tribunal has ....