JAYANT AGRO- ORGANICS LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT-6(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1756/MUM/2024

• Counselvise Citation: 175619914 RSA 2024
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-08-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 09-07-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 07-04-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESHWARI MENON
• Assessee Lawyers: MADHUR AGGARWALNILAY JHAVERI
• Keywords: Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 147; 2; 139; 139(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA Nos. 1756, 1757 & 1758/MUM/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Jayant Agro-Organics Ltd. 701, Tower A, Peninsula Business Park, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400013. Vs. Addl./Joint/Dy./Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi – DCIT-6(1)(2), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai. PAN NO. AAACJ 7581 Q Appellant Respondent ITA Nos. 1918, 1952 & 1915/MUM/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Asst. CIT Circle 6(1)(2), Room No. 506, 5 th floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Mumbai-400020. Vs. Jayant Agro-Organics Ltd. 701, Tower A, Peninsula Business Park, Delisle Road, Mumbai-400013. PAN NO. AAACJ 7581 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Madhur Aggarwal/Nilay Jhaveri Revenue by : Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 10/07/2024 Date of pronouncement : 19/08/2024 PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM These cross-appeals by the assessee and the Revenue are directed against separate orders the Ld. Commissioner of Income Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment years 2014-15, 2017-18 and 2018 2. As common grounds have b therefore, same were heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated order for convenience and avoid repetition of facts. 3. In assessment year challenged finding of Ld. CIT(A) on the validity of the reassessment proceedings as well as issue on merit, w challenged the order of ld CIT(A) on merit but year 2018-19, addition o by the assessee and the Revenue. 4. We have heard rival submissions of parties. assessment years 2014 the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee had filed a rectification application before the Ld. CIT(A) for rectifying the impugned orders on the issue of validity of the reassessment. The Ld. counsel intimated that said rectification applicati ITA Nos. 1756, 1757 & 1758/MUM/2024 1918, 1952 & 1915/MUM/2024 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM appeals by the assessee and the Revenue are directed against separate orders, all dated 16.02.2024 the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment years 18 and 2018-19 respectively. As common grounds have been raised in these appeals, same were heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated order for convenience and avoid repetition of facts. In assessment years 2014-15 and 2017-18, the assessee has challenged finding of Ld. CIT(A) on the validity of the reassessment ings as well as issue on merit, whereas challenged the order of ld CIT(A) on merit but in the assessment addition on the merit has only been challenged by the assessee and the Revenue. We have heard rival submissions of parties. 2014-15 and 2017-18 are concerned he Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee had filed a rectification application before the Ld. CIT(A) for rectifying the impugned orders on the issue of validity of the reassessment. The Ld. counsel intimated that said rectification applicati Jayant Agro-Organics Ltd. 2 ITA Nos. 1756, 1757 & 1758/MUM/2024 & 1918, 1952 & 1915/MUM/2024 appeals by the assessee and the Revenue are all dated 16.02.2024, passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment years een raised in these appeals, same were heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated order for convenience and avoid repetition of facts. 18, the assessee has challenged finding of Ld. CIT(A) on the validity of the reassessment hereas Revenue has in the assessment been challenged both We have heard rival submissions of parties. As far as concerned, before us he Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee had filed a rectification application before the Ld. CIT(A) for rectifying the impugned orders on the issue of validity of the reassessment. The Ld. counsel intimated that said rectification application of the assessee for quashing the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act,1961 ( In short ‘the Ld. CIT(A) by way of his order dated 26.06.2024. In the circumstances, the assessee filed an application for with appeals for AY 2014 application is reproduced as under: “The appellant had filed the captioned appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal to inter alia challenge the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appe Officer under section 147 of the Act. The Appellant had also filed a rectification application before the Commissioner of Income (Appeals) and the appellant has received the order of rectification from Commissioner of Income application of the appellant by quashing the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of Income Accordingly, the appellant requests that since appeal filed by the Appellant have becom as withdrawn with liberty to refile the appeal in case, the Revenue challenges the order dated 28.06.2024 before the Tribunal and succeeds on the ground that there was no mistake in the original order of the Commissioner of Income 4.1 The Ld. counsel for the assessee has quashed the reassessment proceedings while deciding the rectification application. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) was asked to confirm said finding and matter was adjourned the Ld. DR could not confirm whether any appeal was filed by the Revenue on this issue circumstances, we allowe these appeals being infructuous. Once, the reassessment proceedings stands quashed ITA Nos. 1756, 1757 & 1758/MUM/2024 1918, 1952 & 1915/MUM/2024 assessee for quashing the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the tax Act,1961 ( In short ‘the Act’) has been allowed by the Ld. CIT(A) by way of his order dated 26.06.2024. In the circumstances, the assessee filed an application for with s for AY 2014-14 and 2017-18. The relevant part of his application is reproduced as under: The appellant had filed the captioned appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal to inter alia challenge the order of the Commissioner of tax (Appeals) upholding the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer under section 147 of the Act. The Appellant had also filed a rectification application before the Commissioner of Income (Appeals) and the appellant has received the order of rectification from ommissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated 28.06.2024 allowing the application of the appellant by quashing the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of Income-tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, the appellant requests that since appeal filed by the Appellant have become infructuous, therefore the same may be treated as withdrawn with liberty to refile the appeal in case, the Revenue challenges the order dated 28.06.2024 before the Tribunal and succeeds on the ground that there was no mistake in the original order Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).” he Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) quashed the reassessment proceedings while deciding the rectification application. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) asked to confirm whether the Revenue intends to challenge the said finding and matter was adjourned for 10/07/2024 the Ld. DR could not confirm whether any appeal was filed by the Revenue on this issue or intends to file therefore, in the circumstances, we allowed the request of the assessee to withdraw being infructuous. Once, the reassessment proceedings stands quashed by the ld CIT(A), the addition on merit Jayant Agro-Organics Ltd. 3 ITA Nos. 1756, 1757 & 1758/MUM/2024 & 1918, 1952 & 1915/MUM/2024 assessee for quashing the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the has been allowed by the Ld. CIT(A) by way of his order dated 26.06.2024. In the circumstances, the assessee filed an application for withdrawing the . The relevant part of his The appellant had filed the captioned appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal to inter alia challenge the order of the Commissioner of als) upholding the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer under section 147 of the Act. The Appellant had also filed a rectification application before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the appellant has received the order of rectification from tax (Appeals) dated 28.06.2024 allowing the application of the appellant by quashing the reassessment Accordingly, the appellant requests that since appeal filed by the e infructuous, therefore the same may be treated as withdrawn with liberty to refile the appeal in case, the Revenue challenges the order dated 28.06.2024 before the Tribunal and succeeds on the ground that there was no mistake in the original order that the Ld. CIT(A) quashed the reassessment proceedings while deciding the rectification application. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) whether the Revenue intends to challenge the for 10/07/2024. However, the Ld. DR could not confirm whether any appeal was filed by the therefore, in the of the assessee to withdraw being infructuous. Once, the reassessment the addition on merit also does not survive. Therefore, the appeals of the merit also are ren to challenge the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) order dated 28.06.2024 and same is decided against the assessee then the appeals of the parties on the merit needs to be revive to be heard in future, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue as infructuous subject to liberty to file Miscellaneous Application for reviving the appeals challenging the grounds on merit, if the ITAT on the issue of t Accordingly, the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue for both the assessment years 2014 infructuous. 5. In assessment year 2018 with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act. The facts in brief qua the issue in dispute are that during assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed claim of weighed deduction 150% of expense, both capital and revenue , incurred on in house research and development during the financial year 2017 amounted to Rs.4,02,56,307/ is reproduced as under: R & D Revenue ITA Nos. 1756, 1757 & 1758/MUM/2024 1918, 1952 & 1915/MUM/2024 also does not survive. Therefore, the appeals of both the merit also are rendered infructuous. But if the Revenue prefers to challenge the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) passed in its rectification order dated 28.06.2024 and same is decided against the assessee then the appeals of the parties on the merit needs to be revive in future, therefore, at present we dismiss both the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue as infructuous subject to liberty to file Miscellaneous Application for reviving the appeals hallenging the grounds on merit, if the Revenue succeeds on the issue of the validity of the reassessment. Accordingly, the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue for both the assessment years 2014-15 and 2017-18 are In assessment year 2018-19, both the parties are aggrie with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act. The facts in brief qua the issue in dispute are that during assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act at t 150% of expense, both capital and revenue , incurred on in house research and development during the financial year 2017 Rs.4,02,56,307/-. The detail of the deduction claimed is reproduced as under: Rs.2,66,14,538/- Rs.3,99,21,807/- Jayant Agro-Organics Ltd. 4 ITA Nos. 1756, 1757 & 1758/MUM/2024 & 1918, 1952 & 1915/MUM/2024 both the parties on dered infructuous. But if the Revenue prefers in its rectification order dated 28.06.2024 and same is decided against the assessee then the appeals of the parties on the merit needs to be revived and therefore, at present we dismiss both the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue as infructuous subject to liberty to file Miscellaneous Application for reviving the appeals the Revenue succeeds before he validity of the reassessment. Accordingly, the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue for both 18 are dismissed as 19, both the parties are aggrieved with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act. The facts in brief qua the issue in dispute are that during assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed u/s 35(2AB) of the Act at the rate of 150% of expense, both capital and revenue , incurred on in house research and development during the financial year 2017-18, which The detail of the deduction claimed (150%) R & D Capital Total Less:-Amount debited to Profit & Loss A/c Claimed u/s 35(2AB) Total claim u/s 35(2AB) Rs.(2,66,14,538 + 1,36,41,769) 5.1 For claiming deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act, the prescribed Rule 6 under Income prescribe that a company is required to no. 3CK to Department of Scientific and Industrial Research prescribed authority. Fu requirement: “(7A)Approval of expenditure incurred on in development facility shall be subject to the following conditions, namely : (a)The facility should not relate purely to market research, sales promotion, quality control, collection or activities of a like nature; (b)The prescribed authority shall furnish electronically its report, (i)in relation to the approv Part A of Form No.3CL; (ii)quantifying the expenditure incurred on in development facility by the company during the previous year and eligible for weighted deduction under sub Part B of Form No.3CL; (ba)The report in Form No.3CL referred to in clause (b) shall be furnished electronically by the prescribed authority to the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Principal Director General of Income having jurisdiction over such company within one hundred and twenty days,- (i)of the grant of the approval, in a case referred to in sub (b); ITA Nos. 1756, 1757 & 1758/MUM/2024 1918, 1952 & 1915/MUM/2024 Rs.2,23,000/- Rs.3,34,500/- (150%). Rs.2,68,37,538/- Rs.4,02,56,307/- Amount debited to Profit & Loss A/c Rs.2,66,14,538/- Claimed u/s 35(2AB)- weighted deduction Rs.1, 36,41 ,769/- Total claim u/s 35(2AB)- Rs.(2,66,14,538 + 1,36,41,769) Rs.4,02,56,307/- For claiming deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act, the ule 6 under Income-tax Rules, 1962. The Rules 6(4) prescribe that a company is required to file an application in form no. 3CK to Department of Scientific and Industrial Research . Further, the Rule 6(7A) prescribes (7A)Approval of expenditure incurred on in-house research and development facility by a company under sub-section (2AB) of section 35 shall be subject to the following conditions, namely :- The facility should not relate purely to market research, sales promotion, quality control, testing, commercial production, style changes, routine data collection or activities of a like nature; The prescribed authority shall furnish electronically its report, (i)in relation to the approval of in-house research and development facility in Part A of Form No.3CL; (ii)quantifying the expenditure incurred on in-house research and development facility by the company during the previous year and eligible for weighted deduction under sub-section (2AB) of section 35 of the Act in Part B of Form No.3CL; (ba)The report in Form No.3CL referred to in clause (b) shall be furnished electronically by the prescribed authority to the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax or Chief Commissioner of Income Principal Director General of Income-tax or Director General of Income having jurisdiction over such company within one hundred and twenty (i)of the grant of the approval, in a case referred to in sub-clause (i) of clause Jayant Agro-Organics Ltd. 5 ITA Nos. 1756, 1757 & 1758/MUM/2024 & 1918, 1952 & 1915/MUM/2024 (150%). (150%) - For claiming deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act, the CBDT has tax Rules, 1962. The Rules 6(4) file an application in form no. 3CK to Department of Scientific and Industrial Research i.e. rther, the Rule 6(7A) prescribes following house research and section (2AB) of section 35 The facility should not relate purely to market research, sales promotion, testing, commercial production, style changes, routine data The prescribed authority shall furnish electronically its report,- house research and development facility in house research and development facility by the company during the previous year and eligible (2AB) of section 35 of the Act in (ba)The report in Form No.3CL referred to in clause (b) shall be furnished electronically by the prescribed authority to the Principal Chief tax or Chief Commissioner of Income-tax or tax or Director General of Income-tax having jurisdiction over such company within one hundred and twenty clause (i) of clause (ii)of the submission of the audit report, in a case referred to in sub clause (ii) of clause(b); (c)The company shall maintain a separate account for each approved facility; which shall be audited annually and a 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 139 of the Act for furnishing the retur succeeding year. Explanation. - means the audit of accounts by an accountant, as defined in the Explanation below sub (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 Resear (8) For the purposes of this rule, the Principal Director General of Income (Systems) shall specify the procedures, formats and standards for ensuring secure capture and transmission of data, and shall also be responsible for the day-to-day adminis manner so specified. 5.2 The clause (b)(ii) of Rule 6(7A) has been introduced by Income tax (Tenth Amendment effective for year under consideration. 5.3 Thus as per rules, furnish an application in form No. 3CK required to submit a audit report in Form No. Secretary, Department of Scientific and Industrial research on or before the date of filing succeeding year. Thirdly issue report in form No. 3CL to the Pr Income-tax or Chief Commissioner of Income ITA Nos. 1756, 1757 & 1758/MUM/2024 1918, 1952 & 1915/MUM/2024 submission of the audit report, in a case referred to in sub clause (ii) of clause(b); The company shall maintain a separate account for each approved facility; which shall be audited annually and a 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 139 of the Act for furnishing the return of income, for each succeeding year. For the purposes of this sub-rule the expression "audited" means the audit of accounts by an accountant, as defined in the Explanation below sub-section (2) of section 288 of the Income 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. For the purposes of this rule, the Principal Director General of Income (Systems) shall specify the procedures, formats and standards for ensuring secure capture and transmission of data, and shall also be responsible for day administration in relation to furnishing the information in the manner so specified.” ( emphasis supplied by us) The clause (b)(ii) of Rule 6(7A) has been introduced by Income Amendment ) Rules, 2016 w.e.f. 1.7.2016, which is effective for year under consideration. rules, firstly, the assessee was required to n application in form No. 3CK. Secondly, the assessee was required to submit a audit report in Form No. Secretary, Department of Scientific and Industrial research on or of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act for Thirdly, the prescribed authority was required to issue report in form No. 3CL to the Principal Chief Commissioner of tax or Chief Commissioner of Income-tax or Principal Jayant Agro-Organics Ltd. 6 ITA Nos. 1756, 1757 & 1758/MUM/2024 & 1918, 1952 & 1915/MUM/2024 submission of the audit report, in a case referred to in sub- 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 n of income, for each rule the expression "audited" means the audit of accounts by an accountant, as defined in the section (2) of section 288 of the Income-tax Act, 1961; Assets acquired in respect of development of scientific research and development facility shall not be disposed of without the approval of the ch. For the purposes of this rule, the Principal Director General of Income-tax (Systems) shall specify the procedures, formats and standards for ensuring secure capture and transmission of data, and shall also be responsible for tration in relation to furnishing the information in the ( emphasis supplied by us) The clause (b)(ii) of Rule 6(7A) has been introduced by Income- ) Rules, 2016 w.e.f. 1.7.2016, which is assessee was required to , the assessee was required to submit a audit report in Form No. 3CLA to the Secretary, Department of Scientific and Industrial research on or return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act for the prescribed authority was required to incipal Chief Commissioner of tax or Principal Director General of Income having jurisdiction over the facility within 120 days from grant of rule 6(7A) and for qualifying expenditure , within 120 days of submission of audit report. 5.4 The Assessing Officer the reason that said Form 3CLA was filed beyond the due date of filing of the return of income. The relevant finding of the Assessing Officer is reproduced as under: “3.5 The submissions of the assessee have been examined but found not tenable. As seen from the above that the provision of Section 35(2AB)(3) of the Act deduction. There exists no exclusion or exception clause. As per the said provisions of Income Income-tax Rules, 1962, to avail the deduction u/s.35(2AB), the assessee is required to furnish Form No.3CLA (applicable from the Assessment year:2017 of Scientific and Industrial Research on or before the due date specified in Explanation 2 to sub i.e. on or before due date of filing return of income. As the assessee has filed the said Form only on 18/03/2021 and hence the deduction claimed u/s.35(2AB) is not allowable. In the scenario, the assessee is found not eligible for deduction of R 14,538/- debited to Profit & Loss A/c and Rs. 1,36,41,769/ deduction) under section 35(2AB) of the Income light of provision of sub read with Rule claim of deduction is disallowed. 5.6 On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that Form was to be issued by the prescribed authority within period granting its approval. Though claim of weighted deduction however directed the Assessing Officer to withdraw the claim if ITA Nos. 1756, 1757 & 1758/MUM/2024 1918, 1952 & 1915/MUM/2024 Director General of Income-tax or Director General of Income having jurisdiction over the company, for approval of research facility within 120 days from grant of approval under clause (b)(i) of rule 6(7A) and for qualifying expenditure , within 120 days of submission of audit report. 5.4 The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee for the reason that said Form 3CLA was filed beyond the due date of filing of the return of income. The relevant finding of the Assessing Officer is reproduced as under: 3.5 The submissions of the assessee have been examined but found not tenable. As seen from the above that the provision of Section 35(2AB)(3) of the Act, is very specific in regard to allowability of deduction. There exists no exclusion or exception clause. As per the said provisions of Income-tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 6(7)(c) of the tax Rules, 1962, to avail the deduction u/s.35(2AB), the see is required to furnish Form No.3CLA (applicable from the Assessment year:2017-18) 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 o i.e. on or before due date of filing return of income. As the assessee has filed the said Form only on 18/03/2021 and hence the deduction claimed u/s.35(2AB) is not allowable. In the scenario, the assessee is found not eligible for deduction of Rs.4,02,56,307/- i.e. ( Rs.2,66, debited to Profit & Loss A/c and Rs. 1,36,41,769/ deduction) under section 35(2AB) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the light of provision of sub-sections 2 & 3 of Section 35(2AB) of the Act read with Rule 6(7)(c) of the Income-tax Rules, and accordingly, this claim of deduction is disallowed.” On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that Form was to be issued by the prescribed authority within granting its approval. Though the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim of weighted deduction however directed the Assessing Officer to withdraw the claim if the prescribed authority deny Jayant Agro-Organics Ltd. 7 ITA Nos. 1756, 1757 & 1758/MUM/2024 & 1918, 1952 & 1915/MUM/2024 tax or Director General of Income-tax for approval of research approval under clause (b)(i) of rule 6(7A) and for qualifying expenditure , within 120 days of disallowed the claim of the assessee for the reason that said Form 3CLA was filed beyond the due date of filing of the return of income. The relevant finding of the Assessing 3.5 The submissions of the assessee have been examined but found not tenable. As seen from the above that the provision of Section , is very specific in regard to allowability of deduction. There exists no exclusion or exception clause. As per the tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 6(7)(c) of the tax Rules, 1962, to avail the deduction u/s.35(2AB), the see is required to furnish Form No.3CLA (applicable from the 18) electronically to the Secretary, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research on or before the due date section (1) of section 139 of the Act i.e. on or before due date of filing return of income. As the assessee has filed the said Form only on 18/03/2021 and hence the deduction claimed u/s.35(2AB) is not allowable. In the scenario, the assessee is i.e. ( Rs.2,66, debited to Profit & Loss A/c and Rs. 1,36,41,769/- weighted tax Act, 1961, in the sections 2 & 3 of Section 35(2AB) of the Act tax Rules, and accordingly, this On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that Form No. 3CL was to be issued by the prescribed authority within prescribed the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim of weighted deduction however directed the Assessing Officer the prescribed authority deny the expenditure claimed The Revenue is aggrieved with the dir deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act whereas assessee is aggrieved with the direction given for reduction in the claim in case the expenditure is accordingly modified by the prescribed authority. 5.7 During the course of the heari assessee was asked to provide current status of the Form No. 3CL for determining amount of expenditure approved by the prescribed authority for weighted deduction. However, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that till da by the prescribed authority deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act assessee to explain as why said approval has been withheld by the prescribed authority. Since not file a convincing reply, this issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to find out the status of the proceedings before the pr authority for approval of expenditure incurred on the scientific research by the assessee u/s 35(2AB) of the Act by the assessee and the Revenue are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. ITA Nos. 1756, 1757 & 1758/MUM/2024 1918, 1952 & 1915/MUM/2024 by the assessee or quantify at The Revenue is aggrieved with the direction to allow the weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act whereas assessee is aggrieved with the direction given for reduction in the claim in case the expenditure is accordingly modified by the prescribed authority. During the course of the hearing, the Ld. counsel for the assessee was asked to provide current status of the Form No. 3CL amount of expenditure approved by the prescribed authority for weighted deduction. However, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that till date no such form no. 3CL by the prescribed authority for quantifying the expenditure for deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act. In our opinion, it is for the assessee to explain as why said approval has been withheld by the prescribed authority. Since, the Ld. counsel for the assessee could reply, therefore, we feel it appropriate to restore this issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to find out the status of the proceedings before the pr rity for approval of expenditure incurred on the scientific by the assessee and then decide the issue u/s 35(2AB) of the Act in accordance with law. The grounds raised by the assessee and the Revenue are accordingly allowed for Jayant Agro-Organics Ltd. 8 ITA Nos. 1756, 1757 & 1758/MUM/2024 & 1918, 1952 & 1915/MUM/2024 at lesser amount. ection to allow the weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act whereas assessee is aggrieved with the direction given for reduction in the claim in case the expenditure is accordingly modified by the prescribed authority. ng, the Ld. counsel for the assessee was asked to provide current status of the Form No. 3CL amount of expenditure approved by the prescribed authority for weighted deduction. However, the Ld. Counsel for the no. 3CL was issued for quantifying the expenditure for . In our opinion, it is for the assessee to explain as why said approval has been withheld by the , the Ld. counsel for the assessee could therefore, we feel it appropriate to restore this issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to find out the status of the proceedings before the prescribed rity for approval of expenditure incurred on the scientific and then decide the issue of deduction in accordance with law. The grounds raised by the assessee and the Revenue are accordingly allowed for 6. In the result, the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue for assessment year 2014 appeals for assessment year 2018 purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court o Sd/ (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 19/08/2024 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// ITA Nos. 1756, 1757 & 1758/MUM/2024 1918, 1952 & 1915/MUM/2024 In the result, the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue for assessment year 2014-15 and 2017-18 are dismissed whereas the for assessment year 2018-19 are allowed for statistical Order pronounced in the open Court on 19/08/2024. Sd/- Sd/ (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Jayant Agro-Organics Ltd. 9 ITA Nos. 1756, 1757 & 1758/MUM/2024 & 1918, 1952 & 1915/MUM/2024 In the result, the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue for 18 are dismissed whereas the allowed for statistical /08/2024. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai