TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 812
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eby the claim of the petitioner for deduction under Section 10AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'Act, 1961') was rejected, as illegal, arbitrary, void ab initio and violative of the due procedure as contemplated under law. 2. The petitioner-assessee is an undertaking in the Special Economic Zone (SEZ), engaged in the business of electronic data processing, technology and product support services. The petitioner-assessee in order to claim deduction under Section 10AA of the Act, 1961, got its accounts audited and was issued a report in Form-56F on 18.11.2019, i.e., prior to the last date of filing of the return of income on 30.11.2019. The petitioner filed its return of income on 26.11.2019, declaring a total income of Rs. 20,98,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner/assessee, by the Department through the Jurisdictional Assessment Officer (JAO). 4. Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad, being the JAO, issued a notice dated 05.03.2025 to the petitioner to substantiate his claim under Section 10AA of the Act, 1961, pursuant to the order of the ITAT dated 21.07.2023. However, the petitioner submitted a belated response on 14.03.2025 stating that ITAT restored the matter to CPC because of which JAO was not eligible to issue such opportunity letter and hence invalid. 5. Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, passed consequential Order on 24.03.2025 by declining the relief to the petitioner-assessee, holding that the submission of the petitione....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onality was available at Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) to furnish any fresh notice proposing adjustment to income declared by the assessee, and the orders passed by the learned ITAT was properly dealt with, and the Department issued notice dated 05.03.2025 to the petitioner by giving a chance to submit his submissions and since the filing of Form 56F is mandatory in nature and not procedural or directory, the order of the ITAT directing the ACIT, CPC, to issue notice is an impossibility. Therefore, the order passed by the 1st respondent was proper and legal, and is not perverse as alleged by the petitioner. 8. Evidently, the admitted facts are that, the accounts of the petitioner/assessee was duly audited and was issued a report in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efit under Section 10AA of the Act to him. More so, it is an undisputed fact that all the previous and subsequent years, petitioner was extended the benefit under Section 10AA of the Act, 1961, and doctrine of consistency has to be followed. In that view of the matter, rejecting the claim of the petitioner to extend the said benefit under Section 10AA of the Act, by not accepting Form-56F, solely on the ground that system being operated by the Centralized Processing Center and there is no provision for issuance of notice since it is operated by the Centralized Processing Center, is neither proper nor legal, and as aforesaid rejection on mere technicalities should not deprive the legitimate right of the petitioner/assessee, more so, Centrali....