SAHYADRI FARMERS PRODUCER COMPANY LIMITED,NASHIK V. ACIT CIRCLE - 1, NASHIK

ITA 951/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Sahyadri Farmers Producer Company Limited, which appealed against the order of the CIT(A) that upheld the disallowance of a deduction claimed under section 80IB(11A) of the IT Act for the assessment year 2017-18. The deduction of Rs. 8,73,57,770 was initially disallowed by the CPC due to the belated submission of the audit report in Form 10CCB. The CIT(A) upheld this decision, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, referencing a similar case and the Supreme Court's decision in GM Knitting Industries Pvt. Ltd., found that the deduction should not be denied as the audit report was submitted before the final order of assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 778293 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 08-04-2025
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT vs. Wipro Ltd., Discoverture Solutions (India) (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Rohan Korgaonkar vs. DCIT, New Balance IT Services India P. Ltd., Pradeep Kumar Batra vs. DCIT, Desai Infra Projects (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, Tarasafe International (P.) Ltd. vs. DDIT, CPC, CIT V. G. M Knitting bahotries (P) Ltd., CIT v. Wipro Lid
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMIT BOBDE
• Assessee Lawyers: KISHOR B. PHADKE
• Keywords: Set aside; Depreciation; Additional depreciation
• Section: 10B; 80IB

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.951/PUN/2025 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sahyadri Farmers Producer Company Limited, Survey No.1102/8, Behind Police Head Quarter, Adgaon, Nashik- 422003. PAN : AAPCS1516D Vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Nashik. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 03.03.2025 passed by Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-6, Delhi [‘Ld. CIT(A)’] for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “ (All the grounds are without prejudice to each other) 1. The learned ADDL/JCIT (A)-6 Delhi erred in law and fact in upholding disallowance u/s BOIB(114) amounting to Rs.8,73,57,770 made by learned DCIT, CPC (hereinafter Assessee by : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue by : Shri Amit Bobde Date of hearing : 30.07.2025 Date of pronouncement : 08.10.2025 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.951/PUN/2025 2 referred to as the learned I-T authorities) in intimation order u/s 143(1). 2. The learned I-T authorities erred in law and on facts in disallowing the deduction of Rs. 8,73,57,770/- claimed u/s 801B(11A) without taking into consideration the submission filed by the appellant for the year under consideration. 3. The learned I-T authorities ought to have appreciated that delay filing of Form 10CCB will not disentitle the appellant from an eligible deduction, considering the liberal interpretation of section 801B (11A) of ITA, 1961. 4. The learned I-T authorities erred in law in disallowing deduction u/s 80IB (11A) in the intimation order on account of delay in filing the audit report without appreciating the fact that: - Filing of Form 10CCB is merely a procedural compliance - Denial of claim in the intimation order is beyond the jurisdiction - Form 10CCB was available on record before the passing of intimation order u/s 143(1) anyway 5. The appellant craves leave to add/modify/ amend /delete all / any of the grounds of appeal.” 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 07.11.2017 declaring Nil income after claiming deduction u/s 80IB(11A) of the IT Act to the tune of Rs.8,73,57,767/-. However, while processing the return of income u/s 143(1) of the IT Act, the said deduction was disallowed by the CPC since audit report in Form 10CCB was furnished belatedly. Even on first appeal, Ld. CIT(A) uphold the action of the CPC and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.951/PUN/2025 3 4. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. We have heard Ld. counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the case laws furnished by the rival parties. In this regard, we find that admittedly Form No.10CCB audit report was not furnished along with return of income, however the same was furnished in response to the communication sent by the CPC. We also find that Form No.10CCB audit report was furnished well before passing of 143(1) intimation order. Ld. DR appearing from side of the Revenue relied on various judgements passed by Hon’ble Courts and also relied on some decisions passed by coordinate benches of this Tribunal. In this regard, we find that the judgement passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Wipro Ltd. (2022) 140 taxmann.com 223 (SC) and the judgement passed by Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in the case of Discoverture Solutions (India) (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2023) 147 taxmann.com 262 (Orissa) are related to exemption and not deductions hence not applicable to the facts of the instant case. The judgement passed by Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Rohan Korgaonkar vs. DCIT (2024) 159 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.951/PUN/2025 4 taxmann.com 321 (Bombay) and the decision passed by coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of New Balance IT Services India P. Ltd. in ITA No.245 & 246/PUN/2024 order dated 05.06.2024 are also relied on by Ld. DR, however in both the above cases the facts are different hence not applicable to the facts of the instant case in hand. We further find that Ld. DR also relied on the decision passed by a coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Pradeep Kumar Batra vs. DCIT in ITA No.6384/DEL/2019 order dated 23.10.2020. On the other hand, Ld. AR relied on the latest decision passed by jurisdictional coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Desai Infra Projects (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT in ITA No.1852/PUN/2024 order dated 30.12.2024 wherein under similar circumstances the Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the assessee after placing reliance in the case of GM Knitting Industries Pvt. Ltd. by observing as under :- “6.3. We find the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Tarasafe International (P.) Ltd., vs. DDIT, CPC (supra) after considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Wipro Ltd., (supra), has held that when the audit report is filed before the final order of assessment, the assessee was entitled to claim deduction under section 80JJAA. The relevant observations of the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal from para-2 onwards read as under: “2. The short issue involved in this appeal is as to whether the late filing of audit report in Form 10DA would disentitle the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.951/PUN/2025 5 assessee from claiming deduction u/s.80JJAA of the Act, when the said Form 100A was available to the Ld. AO at the time of assessment proceedings. The assessee in this case filed the Form 100A on 27.10.2023 as against the due date of 30.09.2023 but, the same was available to the AO at the time of processing the return of income as the notice u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Act was issued by the CPC to the assessee on 23.11.2023. 3. The issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V. G. M Knitting bahotries (P) Ltd. (2016/12 SCC 272/[2016] 71 taxmann.com 35/376 ITR 456 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, even though it is necessary to file certificate in Form 10CCB along with the return of income, but even if the same has not been filed with the return of income, but the same was filed before the final order of assessment was made, the assessee was entitled to claim deduction u/s. 80-IB of the Act. 4. So far as the reliance of the Id. DR on the another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Wipro Lid 120221 140 taxmann.com 223/288 Tasman 491/446 ITR I (SC) is concerned, it is to be observed that the said case is relating to the claim of exemption u's. 10B falling under Chapter III of the I.T. Act. However, the claim of the assessee in the case in hand is u/s. 80JJAA of the Act under Chapter VIA of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 11 of the judgment in the case of Wipro Lid (supra) has clarified the position that the exemption provisions are to be strictly adhered to whereas the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G. M. Knitting Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is relating to deduction provisions u/s.VA of the Act the relevant para 11 of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Wipro Lad. (supra) is reproduced below : \"11. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this court in the case of G. M. Knitting Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee is concerned, section 108(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 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.951/PUN/2025 6 with \"income 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\". Therefore, none of the decisions which are relied upon on behalf of the assessee on interpretation of Chapter VIA shall be applicable while considering the claim under section 10B(8) of the I.T. Act.\" In view of this, the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G. M. Knitting Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra) the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is, therefore, set aside and the AO is directed to grant deduction to the assessee u/s. 80JJAA of the Act as claimed. The appeal of the assessee stands allowed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed.” 6.4. Since the assessee in the instant case has admittedly filed the audit report in Form-10CCB prior to the processing of the return, therefore, respectfully following the decisions cited (supra), we are of the considered opinion that assessee cannot be denied deduction u/sec.80IA(4) of the Act. Accordingly, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is reversed and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.” 6. Respectfully following the above latest decision passed by coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Desai Infra Projects (I) Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we are of the considered opinion that the assessee cannot be denied deduction u/s 80IB(11A) of the IT Act since the audit report in form 10CCB was furnished prior to processing of the return. Accordingly, we set-aside the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer/CPC to allow deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80IB(11A) of the IT Act. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.951/PUN/2025 7 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on this 08th day of October, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 08th October, 2025. Sujeet आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The Addl./JCIT(A)-6, Delhi. 4. The Pr.CIT/CIT concerned. 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “B” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "