RIGHT HEALTH PLATTER PVT. LTD,CHENNAI V. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-2)2), CHENNAI

ITA 749/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Right Health Platter Pvt. Ltd., which appealed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) confirming the denial of a deduction claimed under section 80-IAC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2022-23. The deduction was initially denied by the Central Processing Centre (CPC) due to the non-filing of Form No.10CCB electronically by the due date. The assessee argued that technical glitches prevented the electronic filing, and they attempted to file the form physically, which was not permitted by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, relying on a Supreme Court decision in PCIT v. Wipro Ltd., which the Tribunal found inapplicable to the present case. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not consider the assessee's inability to file electronically due to technical issues and the subsequent attempt to file physically.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 107112 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2022-2023
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT v. Wipro Ltd. [2022] 446 ITR 1 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A. SASIKUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: P.M. KATHIR
• Keywords: Set aside; Revised return; Depreciation; Additional depreciation
• Section: 10B

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ \u0001यायपीठ, चे ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI \u0001ी एबी टी. वक , ाियक सद\u0011 एवं एवं एवं एवं \u0001ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद क े सम\u001b BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.749/Chny/2024 िनधा\u000eरण वष\u000e/Assessment Year: 2022-23 M/s. Right Health Platter Pvt. Ltd., No.63, Dr. Radakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. v. The ITO, Corporate Ward-2(2), Chennai. [PAN: AAICG 1708 N] (अपीलाथ\u0016/Appellant) (\u0017\u0018यथ\u0016/Respondent) अपीलाथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocate \u0017\u0018यथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से /Respondent by : Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT सुनवाईक\u001aतारीख/Date of Hearing : 18.11.2024 घोषणाक\u001aतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 10.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/Addl. JCIT(A), (hereinafter in short \"theLd.CIT(A)”), Thane, dated 07.02.2024 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter in short \"AY”) 2022-23 confirming the action of the CPC order/intimation passed u/s.143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter in short \"the Act”). 2. At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee filed its return of income (RoI) for AY 2022-23 on 29.09.2022 ITA No.749/Chny/2024 (AY 2022-23) M/s. Right Health Platter Pvt. Ltd. :: 2 :: showing ‘NIL’ income after claiming deduction of Rs.14,53,40,667/- u/s.80-IAC of the Act under Part-C of Chapter VI-A. However, the CPC processed the return u/s.143(1) of the Act on 16.03.2023 denying deduction claimed to the tune of Rs.14,53,40,667/- since assessee failed to file Form No.10CCB (one month prior to due date of filing of RoI u/s.139(1) of the Act). 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) who dismissed the same citing the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT v. Wipro Ltd., reported in [2022] 446 ITR 1 (SC) and aggrieved by the action of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee has preferred this appeal before this Tribunal. 4. Assailing the action of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the present appeal emanates from an order u/s.143(1) of the Act for the A.Y.2022-23, wherein the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s.80IAC of the Act was disallowed for the reason that the Form No.10CCB was not e- filed. And brought to our notice the relevant dates & events which happened in this case, which can be seen as depicted in the chart below: Date Event 29.09.2022 ROI filed by the assessee 29.09.2022 Audit Report filed by the assessee 29.09.2022 Letter filed by the assessee with the JAO 30.09.2022 Original due date u/s.44AB 31.10.2022 Original due date u/s.139(1) 07.10.2022 Extended due date u/s.44AB 07.11.2022 Extended due date u/s.139(1) ITA No.749/Chny/2024 (AY 2022-23) M/s. Right Health Platter Pvt. Ltd. :: 3 :: 5. According to the Ld.AR, it can be seen from the above table [date & events] that the assessee had filed its ROI and audit report on 29.09.2022 within the due date. However, when the assessee attempted to file the Form No.10CCB, it couldn’t upload the same electronically due to some glitches on the e-filing portal. Hence, the assessee promptly tried to file the same physically before the JAO vide letter dated 29.09.2022 (refer Page 3 of PB) but didn’t receive permission from the AO for filing the same. In such circumstances, the CPC passed the adverse order denying sec.80IAC deduction, which according to assessee ought not to have been passed against the assessee. Nevertheless, the assessee brought to the notice of the Ld.CIT(A) the aforesaid facts regarding the assessee’s inability to file Form No.10CCB electronically and that it was not permitted to file the same physically before the AO, but the Ld.CIT(A) didn’t bother to adjudicate on this assertion made by the assessee and dismissed the appeal by blaming its omission for uploading Form 10CCB by relying on the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of PCIT vs. Wipro Ltd. [2022] 446 ITR 1 (SC). However, the Ld AR asserted that the case law PCIT vs. Wipro Ltd, supra relied by Ld CIT(A) is not applicable to the present case because assessee is merely claiming a deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act whereas the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Wipro Ltd supra, dealt with a case wherein claim of exemption was u/s.10B of the Act i.e., Chapter III of the Act. According to the Ld.AR, such a distinction ITA No.749/Chny/2024 (AY 2022-23) M/s. Right Health Platter Pvt. Ltd. :: 4 :: was taken note by the Hon’ble Supreme Court itself at para 11 of its order (Wipro order) which is extracted under: 11. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this Court in the case of G.M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd. (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee is concerned, section 10B (8) is an exemption provision which cannot be compared with claiming an additional depreciation under section 32(1) (ii-a) of the Act. As per the settled position of law, an assessee claiming exemption has to strictly and literally comply with the exemption provisions. Therefore, the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand, while considering the exemption provisions. Even otherwise, Chapter III and Chapter VIA of the Act operate in different realms and principles of Chapter III, which deals with \"incomes which do not form a part of total income\", cannot be equated with mechanism provided for deductions in Chapter VIA, which deals with \"deductions to be made in computing total income\". Emphasis given by us 6. Thus, it was pointed out that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Wipro (supra) cannot be applied to the assessee’s case. And since the Ld CIT(A) has not adjudicated the matter in the light of the assessee’s assertion regarding its inability to e-file the Form No.10CCB due to technical glitches, and the assessee’s attempt to file the same physically before the AO well within the due date, which is shown by the assessee in the Chart below, it was prayed that this issue may be remanded back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for his decision/adjudication considering the bona fide action of the assessee. 7. Per contra, the Ld.DR couldn’t controvert the aforesaid submissions made by the Ld.AR. 8. Having heard both the parties, we note that the present appeal emanates from an order u/s.143(1) of the Act for the A.Y.2022-23, ITA No.749/Chny/2024 (AY 2022-23) M/s. Right Health Platter Pvt. Ltd. :: 5 :: wherein the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s.80-IAC of the Act was disallowed for the reason that Form No.10CCB was not e-filed. The assessee had filed its RoI on 29.09.2022; and according to the Ld.AR, the Audit Report [Form No.10CCB] was ready and they tried to upload it electronically on the same day, but due to technical glitches on the e- filing portal, assessee couldn’t upload Form No.10CCB on the same day which omission/inability to do so was beyond the control of the assessee and the assessee shouldn’t be penalized for it. According to the Ld.AR, the bona fide action of the assessee in this regard can be seen from the fact that the assessee immediately requested the JAO by duly filing a letter on the same day informing its inability to upload Form No.10CCB and also its willingness to file hard copy of Form No.10CCB (refer Page No.3 of the Paper Book). However, it was brought to our notice that the JAO didn’t respond/gave him permission for filing the same. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) brushed aside the assessee’s aforesaid submissions and has merely relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Wipro Ltd. (supra) to disallow the deduction claimed under Chapter-IVA on the ground that assessee failed to file electronically Form 10CCB within the due date. We don’t countenance such an action of the Ld.CIT(A), because, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Wipro Ltd. (supra), is not applicable in the facts of the case as evident from Para No.11 of the very same decision (in the case of Wipro Ltd.). Therefore, ITA No.749/Chny/2024 (AY 2022-23) M/s. Right Health Platter Pvt. Ltd. :: 6 :: the Ld.CIT(A) misdirected himself applying the case law in the case of Wipro Ltd. (supra) in the facts of the case and claim of assessee; and the Ld.CIT(A) has not considered/apreciated the facts stated by the assessee that it had filed the RoI/Audit Report on 29.09.2022 and couldn’t file Form No.10CCB due to technical glitches and had expressed its desire to file the hard copy before the JAO which permission was not granted. These facts ought to have been considered by the Ld.CIT(A) while passing the First Appellate order disposing of the grounds of Appeal. Having not done so and for the aforesaid infirmity, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the appeal back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for deciding the appeal afresh after considering the relevant facts stated supra. The assessee is directed to file the relevant documents/written submissions before the Ld.CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) to decide the appeal in accordance to law. 9. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on the 10th day of January, 2025, in Chennai. Sd/- (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (S.R.RAGHUNATHA) लेखा सद\u0003य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- (एबी टी. वक ) (ABY T. VARKEY) \u0005याियक सद\u0003य/JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.749/Chny/2024 (AY 2022-23) M/s. Right Health Platter Pvt. Ltd. :: 7 :: चे ई/Chennai, !दनांक/Dated: 10th January, 2025. TLN, Sr.PS आदेश क\u001a \u0017ितिलिप अ$ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ /Appellant 2. \u000e\u000fथ /Respondent 3. आयकरआयु\u0015/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय\u000eितिनिध/DR 5. गाड फाईल/GF "