TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1901
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dated 25th October 2024 passed by Respondent No. 1 rejecting the applications filed by the Petitioner for issuance of Form 3CL [under Rule 6 read with Section 35(2AB) of Income Tax Act, 1961] with respect to A.Y. 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020- 21, holding them to be delayed i.e. filed beyond the due date specified in the Guidelines issued in July 2017 by Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as "the Guidelines"). 3. At the outset, the Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that insofar as A.Y. 2019-20 is concerned, the deduction claimed by the Petitioner in the Return of Income under Section 35(2AB) of the Act has been accepted as filed, and therefore, the grievance in the present petition survives only for A.Y. 2018-19 and 2020-21. 4.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Guidelines were filed by the Petitioner on 24th January 2020 and 5th February 2021 respectively. He submitted that after the filing of the details there was continuous interaction between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 not being satisfied with the details filed by the Petitioner, granted (vide communication dated 30th May 2024) one last opportunity to the Petitioner to file requisite details/ clarification/documents by 30th June 2024. In response, the Petitioner by letters dated 17th June 2024 (emailed to Respondent No. 1 on 19th June 2024) submitted the requisite details/clarification/ documents for issuance of Form 3CL in respect of A.Y. 2018-19 and 2020-21. Despite the foregoing, the Counsel submitted, Respondent ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....019-20 [A.Y. 2020-21] as against due date 15th February 2021. Relying upon the Affidavit, he further submits that the Petitioner itself, in paragraph 19 of the Writ Petition admits that after the receipt of approval, the submission of details was delayed due to the reasons mentioned therein. He, therefore, submits that the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the evidence on record. For the purposes of deciding the dispute in the present Petition, it would be profitable to reproduce the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Income Tax Rules, 1962, viz. Section 35(2AB) and Rule 6(7A). Section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 reads as under :- "(1) Where a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment with the prescribed authority for cooperation in such research and development facility and fulfils such conditions with regard to maintenance of accounts and audit thereof and furnishing of reports in such manner as may be prescribed. (4) The prescribed authority shall submit its report in relation to the approval of the said facility to the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Director General in such form and within such time as may be prescribed. (5) *** (6) No deduction shall be allowed to a company approved under sub-clause (C) of clause (iia) of sub-section (1) in respect of the expenditure referred to in clause (1) which is incurred after the 31st day of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....); (c) The company shall maintain a separate account for each approved facility; which shall be audited annually and a report of audit in Form No.3CLA shall be furnished electronically to the Secretary, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research on or before the due date specified in Explanation 2 to sub-section (1) of section 139 of the Act for furnishing the return of income, for each succeeding year. (d) Assets acquired in respect of development of scientific research and development facility shall not be disposed of without the approval of the Secretary, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research." 10. A plain reading of Rule 6(7A)(c) makes it clear that the obligation of an assessee under Section 35(2AB....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i.e. before extended due date of 15th February 2021 for filing of Return of Income. We, therefore, find that the Petitioner has duly complied with Rule 6(7A)(c). In view thereof, the order dated 25th October 2024 passed by Respondent No. 1 treating the applications filed by the Petitioner for A.Y. 2018-19 and 2020-21 as delayed is unsustainable. Further, it is also not disputed that the Petitioner had, in response to the communication dated 30th May 2024 issued by Respondent No. 1, filed its submission with Respondent No. 1 by email of 19th June 2024, i.e. before 30th June 2024 stated by Respondent No. 1 in its communication dated 30th May 2024. 12. Considering the aforesaid facts, we are of the opinion that the order dated 25th Octob....