TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1395
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 40,85,709/- which RoI was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act by the CPC, which didn't allow the deduction claimed u/s. 80IA of the Act vide intimation dated 12.12.2018. Pursuant thereto, the assessee filed rectification before the CPC, which was rejected on 14.05.2019. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) who has confirmed the action of the CPC by passing the impugned order. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. The Ld.AR assailing the action of lower authorities, submitted that since assessee had filed RoI within the due date u/s. 139(1) of the Act, the deduction ought to have been allowed, especially when assessee uploaded Form 10CCB, which was very well before the CPC, while it considered and adjudicated the rectification application filed by the assessee u/s. 154 of the Act, and for such a proposition relied on plethora of judicial precedents (infra). According to him, the settled position of law is that if deduction is claimed by an assessee u/s 80IA, it should claim the same while filing the RoI within the time prescribed u/s. 139(1), which is mandatory, but filing of Form 10CCB is directory, meaning, it ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aim as stipulated in Section 80IB(13) r/w.Sec.80IA(7) of the Act, by observing that it was enough if the Audit Report was filed before the assessment was completed?" 6.2 And the Hon'ble High Court answered the same the question (supra) by upholding the action of the Tribunal holding that the assessee was entitled to claim deduction u/s. 80IB [in respect of the unit at Pondichery] even though the assessee had not complied by filing the Audit Report in Form 10CCB as required under Section 80IB(13) r/w.Sec.80IA(7) of the Act, by observing that it was enough if the Audit Report was filed before the assessment was completed and dismissed the Revenue appeal by holding as under: 2.The assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacture of steel ingots. In respect of the assessment year 2005-06, assessment order dated 26.12.2007 was passed under Sec.143(3) of the Act, in which, the assessing officer has disallowed the claim of the assessee made under Section 80IB of the Act and has also made addition of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- as unexplained credit, under Section 68 of the Act, on the ground that for the purpose of claiming deduction, the assessee did not file necessary certif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Panjab and Haryana High Court in CIT V. Mahalaxmi Rice Factory (2007) 294 ITR 631. 7. The Culcutta High Court in the case in THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. BERGER PAINTS (INDIA) LTD (NO.2) has also concurred with the said view which was followed by the Tribunal in this case. 8. Mr.T.Ravikumar, the learned counsel for the appellant is not able to produce any other judgement contrary to the above said views consistently taken. 9. In the light of the above, by virtue of hierarchy of judgements which are against the Revenue, the substantial question of law (1) would not arise at all for consideration. [emphasis given by us] 6.3 According to the Ld.AR, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had affirmed the aforesaid action of Madras High Court which was challenged by the Revenue before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.4048 of 2014 by order dated 24th July, 2015 and submitted that the order of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in AKS Alloys (supra) has now merged with the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, is binding; therefore, he pleaded that deduction be allowed. 7. Per contra, Ld.DR opposes the contention/claim of the assessee raising the following ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....twin conditions as provided under section 108(8) of the IT Act, as observed hereinabove. The present Appeal is accordingly Allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. C) In another latest decision, while passing a detailed order dated 12th October, 2022, the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd vs. CIT (as reported in 143 taxmann.com 178) held at Para 48 as follows: "48. One of the rules of interpretation of a tax statute is that if a deduction or exemption is available on compliance with certain conditions, the conditions are to be strictly complied with Eagle Flask Industries Ltd. v. CCE 2004 taxmann.com 350 (SC)/2004 Supp. (4) SCR 35, This rule is in line with the general principle that taxing statutes are to be construed strictly, and that there is no room for equitable considerations." D) Similarly, while passing a detailed order dated 5th October, 2005, the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Britannia Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax held at Para 17 as follows: "When the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, the courts are to i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under the Act. This is the intent behind incorporating various stringent conditions, if a taxpayer intent to claim any deduction or exemption under the Act. Keeping this change in intent, the Honourable Supreme Court has been directing through its various case decisions, as mentioned above, to interpret the language of the law as it is in a literal sense, without attributing any additional meaning or liberty, which the law never indented to extend. 8. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. As noted, the assessee had filed RoI for AY 2016-17 on 30.10.2017 u/s. 139(1) of the Act (within due date) admitting total income at Rs. 1,11,25,470/- after claiming deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act to the tune of Rs. 40,85,709/-. It was brought to our notice that assessee had obtained report in Form No.10CCB manually on 30.10.2017, but omitted to upload it. The claim for deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act was denied by the CPC vide intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act dated 12.12.2018. The assessee is noted to have filed Form 10CCB on 04.02.2019 before CPC along with an application for rectification u/s. 154 and pleaded for allowing claim of deduction u/s. 80IA of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee furnishes, along with his return of income, the report of such audit in the prescribed form duly signed and verified by such accountant. 9. The requirement to file Form 10 CCB under Section 80IA(7) came w.e.f. 01.04.2020 and not in AY 2016-17. Therefore, the reliance by Ld.DR (supra) will not be of any aid to the Revenue, to deny the claim of deduction under Chapter VI of the Act. Next argument is that sec.80A(5) & 80AC creates fetter for assessee's claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. A conjoint reading of both sec.80A(5) & 80AC supra it is clear that in order to claim deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act, the assessee had to file RoI before due date u/s. 139(1) of the Act and make its claim of deduction under Chapter-VIA. Then, the deduction claimed u/s. 80IA can't be denied to the assessee. In the present case, the assessee has undisputedly filed RoI before the due date u/s. 139(1) of the Act by filing the return for AY 2017-18 on 30.10.2017 after claiming deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act to the tune of Rs. 40.85.709/-. Thus, the assessee has fulfilled the condition stipulated u/s. 80A(5) as well as 80AC of the Act. It is pertinent to note here that the aforesaid provisions ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ort along with the return is directory and not mandatory, observed that the appellate authority has also the powers of the original authority and it is open to the appellate authority to direct the Assessing Officer to receive the audit report or to direct him to consider the audit report filed before the appellate authority on merits or to consider the report himself. 11. The Hon'ble Madras High Court (supra) has taken note of its own decision while deciding the claim of assessee in respect of deduction u/s. 32AB(5) claimed by the assessee held that the deduction can't be disallowed on the ground that the assessee didn't file audit report along with return, in its order passed in the case of CIT v. Ramani Realtors (P) Ltd., reported in [2015] 54 taxmann.com 321 (Madras) wherein the Hon'ble Madras High Court held as under: "In view of the well-settled principles uniformly held in the decisions cited supra, we have no hesitation to hold that the filing of the audit report along with the return, as contemplated under section 32AB(5) of the Act, is only directory and not mandatory. Hence, finding no substantial question of law arising for consideration, the appeal is dismi....