TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1773
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad 'e' instead of sub-head 'd'. Therefore, the Appellant cannot be denied the deduction based on the ground that the Appellant has marked the deduction under the wrong the sub-head. 2. BECAUSE, the Hon'ble CIT(A) failed to take into consideration various judicial pronouncements which have highlighted the fact that the Appellant/Assessee cannot be denied deductions under section 80IA of the Act merely on the ground that the Appellant has not duly filed form 10CCB within the stipulated time period as per the Income Tax Act. 3. BECAUSE, the delay in filing Form No. 10CCB should not result in the denial of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. In the case of Delhi MSW Solutions Ltd. (ITAT Hyderabad) ITA no. 3888/Hyd/19 supported the view that the mere delay in submitting Form No. 10CCB does not invalidate the deduction, especially when the return was filed within the due date and the tax auditor had certified the claim. 4. BECAUSE, the denial of the deduction solely on the ground of a delay in filing Form No. 10CCB is contrary to the established legal principles, and the Appellant should be entitled to the deduction as claimed. 5. That, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... after passing the intimation under section 143(1) dated 20.03.2017. Thus, it is well established fact that at the time of passing the intimation under section 143(1), the form No. 10CCB was not available on record. Accordingly. I am not inclined to interfere with the decision of the Assessing Officer. The above ground of appeal is hereby dismissed." Now, aggrieved by CIT(A)'s order, the assessee has come in next appeal before us. 3. We have heard learned Representatives of both sides and case record perused. 4. Before us, Ld. AR for assessee at first submitted following facts: (i). That, the assessee filed return of income on 28.09.2015 well before due date u/s 139(1). In the return so filed, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 16,85,867/- u/s 80-IA and filled details in "Schedule 80-IA", copy of relevant page of return is scanned and re-produced on Page No. 5 of Written-Submission of Ld. AR, although the assessee inadvertently selected sub-head (e) relating to "the business of revival of power-generating plant u/s 80-IA(4)(v) and business of cross country natural gas distribution network u/s 80-IA(4)(vi)" whereas the correct selection should be sub-head (d) re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed. Ld. AR also relied upon certain decisions, more prominent and relevant are extracted below: (a) Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in ITO Vs. Smt. Mandira D. Vakharia (2001) 250 ITR 432: "8. By the Board circular, it has been made clear that if the audit report specified under Section 80HHC(4) is not furnished with the return, then the deduction may be disallowed as a prima facie adjustment. But, if evidence is subsequently furnished, rectification under Section 154 should be carried out to the extent permitted by the Board Circular No. 669, dated October 25, 1993 (see [1993] 204 ITR (St.) 105). The circular then proceeds to mention some other provisions in regard to the non-filing of the audit report or other evidence along with the return of income as required under various Sections such as 12A(b), 33AB(2), 35E(6), 43B (first proviso), 80-I(7), 80-IA(8) and the like. The case of the Revenue is that since Sections 80HHE and 80GG are not specifically mentioned in the Board circular, the assessee would not be entitled to the benefit of deductions under Sections 80HHE and 80GG on the furnishing of the audit report/proof with the rectification application. 9. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../s Satish Cold Storage Vs. DCIT, ITA No. 76 & 77/Lucknow/2021, AY 2017-18 & 2018-19: "4. I have heard the rival parties and have perused the material available on record. I find that it is undisputed fact that the claim of the assessee u/s. 80IB has not been allowed by the authorities below only because of the reason that the audit report in Form-10CCB was not filed along with return of income and was only filed after receipt of intimation u/s. 143(1) and therefore, the assessee filed rectification applications u/s. 154 of the Act after uploading Form-10CCB which was rejected by CPC. The ld. CIT(A) has rejected the appeals by holding that there was no mistake apparent from record. However, while holding so, he escaped the contents of Circular No. 689 dated 24.8.1994 which clearly directs the Officers to allow rectification u/s. 154 for non-filing of audit report or other evidence which could not be filed with the return of income. For the sake of completeness, the contents of Circular No.689 are reproduced below: XXX 5. I further find that taking cognizance of this circular the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of ITO vs. Smt. Mandira D Vakh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bmitted that the present case was squarely covered by this decision. Accordingly, in view of these facts, circumstances and judicial pronouncements, he prayed for relief by allowing the claim under section 80IB of the Act particularly when the said deduction had been allowed in preceding years in past by the AO only. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. Sr. DR supported orders of authorities below. He contended that the appeal before the Addl. CIT was against the order passed under section 154 of the Act. Since there was no mistake in the said order as the audit report in Form 10CCB was not available when the AO-CPC passed order under section 143(1) of the Act. Therefore, the Ld. Addl. CIT(A) had rightly dismissed the appeal of the assessee. He prayed for dismissal of this appeal accordingly. 6. We have heard both parties and have perused the material available on the records. There is no dispute in facts. Undisputedly, the AO-CPC and the Addl. CIT(A) disallowed the deduction under section 80IB of the Act for sole reason that the audit report in Form-10CCB was not filed along with the ITR and was only filed after the receipt of intimation under section 143(1) of the Act.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tely explained by means of affidavit of auditors. Therefore, taking into account the view taken in judicial precedents relied by Ld. AR as discussed above, we are of the considered opinion that the deduction statutorily available to assessee cannot be denied. 9. So far as the incorrect filling of information in return is concerned, we again agree with Ld. AR that the inadvertent mistake of selecting wrong sub head (e) relating to "the business of revival of power-generating plant u/s 80-IA(4)(v) and business of cross-country natural gas distribution network u/s 80-IA(4)(vi)" in place of correct sub-head (d) relating to "the business of power generation" cannot obstruct the deduction statutorily available to assessee when the facts/documents are very clear that the assessee is engaged in the business of power generating and eligible for deduction u/s 80-IA(4). Therefore, we direct the AO not to take any adverse view of this aspect. 10. In view of details discussions and for the reasoning stated therein, we direct the AO to allow deduction to assessee u/s 80-IA(4)(iv) on the basis of Form No. 10CCB filed by assessee on 11.10.2017 which is available in departmental database. The....