TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 702
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... That in the facts and circumstances of the case the order passed by the learned Addl/JCIT-(A) -5 Kolkatta has grossly erred in confirming the action of the learned AO in disallowing deduction under section 80IAC on the ground that report in form 10CCB was not filed by the due date whereas the same was filed on 11-10-202 before processing of return under section 143(1)(a) on 11-11-2022. 3. That in the facts and circumstances of the case the order passed by the learned Addl/JCIT-(A) -5 Kolkatta has grossly erred in confirming the action of the learned AO in making adjustment under section 143(1)(a) by disallowing claim of deduction under section 80IAC without considering the submission of the assessee filed on 11-10-2022 which was required to be considered as per second proviso of section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. That in the facts and circumstances of the case the order passed by the learned Addl/JCIT-(A) -5 Kolkatta has grossly erred in confirming the action of the learned AO in making adjustment under section 143(1)(a) by disallowing claim of deduction under section 80IA Deduction in Respect Of Eligible Start-UP, claimed by the assessee merely o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In the return of income the assessee had paid Minimum Alternative Tax under section 115JB of the act of Rs. 13,00,053/- @ 15% of book profit of Rs. 72,08,311/-. The requirement to file Form No.10-CCB along with return of income was not adhered by the assessee. The assessee company uploaded the Form 10CCB on the portal before the processing the return of income by the CPC in the reply of the notice. The Ld. CPC while processing the return of income under section 143(1) of the Act denied the benefit of lower tax rate as provided under section 115JB of the act to the assessee on the ground that valid FORM 10-CCB was not uploaded on the portal. In the present case the Form 10-CCB was uploaded after the prescribed time. The intention of the assessee to disclose the income under the under section 115JB of the Act was disclosed in the tax audit report of the assessee. The deduction under section 80IAC cannot be disallowed for non-filling of Form No. 10CCB. In the case of Jitendera Kumar Nahata vs. JCIT ITA No. 41/Bang/2022 the co-ordinate Bench of Bangalore vide its order dated 13.5.2022 held as u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellant has stated that the adjustment has been prescribed from only A. Y. 2017-18 and therefore could not have been done for the present year, this contention of the appellant is rejected accordingly as the adjustment are not prescribed as per law and therefore to presume that an adjustment could have been done only in A. Y. 2017-18 is incorrect presumption and is rejected accordingly. The appellant noted that as the revised return has been processed and the original return was on time, therefore the appellant was eligible for deduction u/s. 80 IA in view of various judicial rulings with regard to 80AC, which places the clauses for the denial of deduction, if the returns are not filed within the due date. The appellant further filed a grievance petition on 09.04.2018 by raising this contention as brought out in the above paragraph, to which the communication was received that the Form No. 10CCC/10CCB was not filed. The appellant has contended that this action u/s 143(1) is illegal and therefore the addition made u/s 143(1) should be deleted accordingly. There are two issues which emerge' out of the whole discussion, the first issue is regarding the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ne through facts and circumstances of the case. The facts stated hereinabove remained undisputed and hence, the same are not reiterated for the sake of brevity. The analysis to the impugned issue by the Ld. CIT(A) and the various provisions of the Act relating to the impugned issue together with the various case laws relied on by the Ld. AR are not reiterated herein for the sake of brevity. We found it pertinent to analyse the applicability of the Special bench decision of the Rajkot Tribunal in the case of Saffire Garments Vs. ITO reported in (2012)28 taxman.com 27 (Rajkot S.B) dated 30.11.2012 to the facts of the instant case. We find that the Hon'ble Special bench observed that the proviso to section 10A(1A) of the Act states that no deduction under this section shall be allowed to an assessee who does not furnish a return of his income on or before the due date specified under sec. 139(1) of Act and accordingly, it was held that the above proviso is mandatory and not directory. The Hon'ble Special Bench distinguished catena of cases relied on by the assessee and held that those decisions were in different context, viz., filing of audit report, form No. 10 CCB e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al of revenue is dismissed. In the above case, the assessee was allowed deduction u/s. 80 IA merely on the fact that the return was filed within the due date and in spite of the fact that the claim u/s. 80IA was made for the first time in the revised return. In the instant case, the appellant had claimed the deduction u/s 80IA in the original return and only revised it subsequently. The assessee did not file the Form No.10CCB during the course of filing the original return but filed it subsequently in the revised return. Therefore, the case of the appellant is much better than of the issue discussed above, wherein the claim was made for the first time in the revised return and therefore in that case 10CCB obviously was filed for the first time in the revised return. Therefore, in the present case only the claim was revised regarding deduction u/s 80IA in the revised return and Form No. 10CCB was filed for the first time in the revised return. Thus, the case of the appellant is a sub set of the case discussed above, wherein the deduction u/s. 80IA was allowed. The above being factual position of law would not need any interpretat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as within the due date of the filing of the return. The appellant had declared an income of Rs. 5,43,660/- after claiming deduction u/s. 80IA of Rs. 19,02,51,433/ - and further offered income u/s 11 5JB at Rs. 5,34,33,460/-. The appellant further filed a revised return on 28.12.2016 declaring an income of Rs. 5,45,170/- after revising the deduction u/s. 80IA to Rs. 19,18,68,986/- u/s. 80IA of the Income Tax Act and income u/s 115JB at Rs. 5,09,10,210/- The revised return was processed u/s 143(1) on 20.08.2017 which resulted in the disallowance u/s 80IA(4) of Rs. 19,18,68,986/-, thus resulting in the income of Rs. 19,24,14,160/- (after rounding of). The appellant filed an application u/s. 154 which was rejected and further a grievance petition was filed on 29.01.2018 in which it was stated to the appellant that the return has been filed after the due date of filing of return. For such an action, the appellant has stated that the adjustment has been prescribed from only A. Y. 2017-18 and therefore could not have been done for the present year, this contention of the appellant is rejected accordingly as the adjustment are not prescribed as per law and therefore to pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the case of DCIT Vs Mackintosh Burn Ltd, Kolkata, The said assessee filed its return of income on 29.11.2006, u/s 139(1) of the IT Act declaring taxable income at Rs. 15.27 Crores, subsequently, the assessee filed revised return u/ s 139(5) claiming the deduction u/ s 80IA at Rs. 9.44 Crores. The AO disallowed the claim stating that there is no claim in the return filed u/ s 139( 1) as CA's certificate in Form No.10CCB was not obtained on the date when the original return is filed. The CIT(A) allowed the claim and the Department preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT Kolkata. The Hon'ble ITAT in their order DCIT Vs Mackintosh Burn Ltd, Kolkata, in ITA No. 7901Kol/2014, dt: 15.03.2017, after considering the decisions of other judicial bodies dismissed the appeal of the department. The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced hereunder: "We have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. The facts stated hereinabove remained undisputed and hence, the same are not reiterated for the sake of brevity. The analysis to the impugned issue by the Ld. CIT(A) and the various provisions of the Act relating to the impugned issu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... bench decided the issue against the assessee, which is not the case of the assessee before us. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) had made the very same observation after interpreting the section 80AC of the Act [similar to proviso to sec. 10 A(1A) i,e, claim of section 80IA, shall be allowed if return is furnished before the due date offihing the return and held that the assessee is squarely entitled for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act as all the conditions therein were duly fulfilled by the assessee. The Ld. DR did not refute any of the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) by producing any cogent material or contrary evidence and the submissions made by the Ld. AR before us. In view of our aforesaid acts and findings and respectfully following the Judicial precedents relied upon hereinabove, We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the same is hereby upheld. Appeal of revenue is dismissed. In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed. In the above case, the assessee was allowed deduction u/s. 80 IA merely on the fact that the return was filed within the due date and in spite of the fact that the claim u/s. 80IA was made for the first time in the revised return. In ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f. Assessee's sole substantive grievance to this effect allowed for statistical purposes therefore. The assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purpose." 10. Considering the above judgment, since the assessee had filed its return of income before the due date, as specified u/s 139(1) of the Act for the relevant asst. year and in the return of income he has also claimed deduction. The tax Auditor has also certified the deduction claimed as per Sl.No.33 of the Form No.3CD therefore, only for want of not filing Form NO.10CCB within the due date the claim of deduction should not be disallowed, to which, the assessee had filed revised return within the due date. 10. Considering the above judgment, since the assessee had filed its return of income before the due date, as specified u/s 139(1) of the Act for the relevant asst. year and in the return of income he has also claimed deduction. The tax Auditor has also certified the deduction claimed as per Sl.No.33 of the Form No.3CD therefore, only for want of not filing Form NO.10CCB within the due date the claim of deduction should not be disallowed, to which, the assessee had filed revised return within the due date.....