VIJAY DEVICHAND NIBJIYA,PUNE V. DCIT CIRCLE (5), PUNE

ITA 634/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Vijay Devichand Nibjiya, the appellant, who contested the disallowance of a deduction claimed under section 80IA(4)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2022-23. The deduction was initially disallowed by the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) due to the late filing of Form 10CCB, which was attributed to technical issues with the Income Tax Portal. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, leading to the appeal before the ITAT Pune. The Tribunal examined precedents and the circumstances of the Form 10CCB filing, ultimately deciding in favor of the assessee based on the timing of the filing relative to the processing of the tax return.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 712765 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2022-2023
• Other Referred Cases: Desai Infra Projects P. Ltd Vs. CIT, Roxiler Systems P. Ltd., Vs. ITO
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AKHILESH SRIVASTVA
• Assessee Lawyers: NIKHIL S PATHAK; VARIOUS
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”बी” Ɋायपीठ पुणेमŐ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE BEFORE MS.ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.634/PUN/2025 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Vijay Devichand Nibjiya, Office No.304/305/306, D Wing, 3rd Floor, Business Court, Mukundnagar, Pune – 411037. Maharashtra. V s. The DCIT, Circle-(5)/A.O. Centralised Processing Centre. PAN: AANPN8491R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Nikhil S Pathak – AR Revenue by Shri Akhilesh Srivastva – DR Date of hearing 19/06/2025 Date of pronouncement 30/07/2025 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of ld.Add./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)-6, Delhi passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the A.Y.2022-23 dated 13.02.2025. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.634/PUN/2025 [A] 2 “11 The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of deduction of Rs.1,55,63,901/- u/s 801A(4)(iv) in the intimation u/s 143(1). 21 The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that - a. The report in Form 10CCB was filed by the appellant on 24.11.2022 i.e. before the return was processed u/s 143(1). b. The condition in section 801A that the report in Form 10CCB should be filed within the specified date was only directory and not mandatory and accordingly, filing of the report before the intimation was in compliance with the law as per various decisions and there was no violation of section 801A(7). 3] The learned CIT(A) was not justified in relying upon the decision of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Pradeep Kumar Batra by ignoring various decisions in favour of the assessee referred to on page 6 and 7 of his order. 4] The learned CIT(A) was not justified in making this disallowance in the intimation u/s 143(1) when such disallowance did not constitute a prima facie adjustment. 5] The learned CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the order u/s 154 when the disallowance of deduction u/s 801A, constituted a mistake apparent from record in view of the various decisions relied upon by the assessee. 6] The appellant requests for allowing the deduction u/s 801A of Rs.1,55,63,901/- as the same is rightly allowable in law. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.634/PUN/2025 [A] 3 7] The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” Submission of Ld.AR : 2. Ld.AR filed a paper book Ld.AR submitted that in this case assessee had claimed deduction u/s.80IA(4)(iv) of the Act, in the Return of Income . The Form 10CCB was filed on 24/11/2022. Due to technical glitches on the Income Tax Portal the Form 10CCB could not be filed within the statutory time limit. Ld.AR invited our attention to the copy of the Grievance raised by the Assessee regarding the same. Ld.AR submitted that the Form 10CCB was filed before the order u/s 143(1) was passed. Hence CPC had erred in not allowing the deduction. Ld.AR relied on the decision of ITAT Pune in the case of Desai Infra Projects P. Ltd Vs. CIT in ITA No.1852/PUN/2024, Roxiler Systems P. Ltd., Vs. ITO in ITA No.2078/PUN/2024 for A.Y.2022-23. 2.1 Ld.AR further pleaded that the CPC do not have any jurisdiction to disallow deduction. He referred to section 143(1) of the Act. 2.2 Ld.AR pleaded that the appeal of the assessee may be allowed. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.634/PUN/2025 [A] 4 Submission of Ld.DR : 3. The Ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of the CIT(A) and order u/s 143(1). Findings and Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. The question before us is whether the ADIT(CPC) was right in disallowing assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iv) on the ground of delay in filing Form 10CCB ? 4.1 This issue has been decided in favour of Assessee by various Benches of ITAT. 4.2 The ITAT Pune in the case of Desai Infra Projects P. Ltd. Vs. CIT in ITA No.1852/PUN/2024 for A.Y.2022-23 vide order dated 30/12/2024 has held as under : Quote “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.” Unquote. 4.3 It is observed that Assessee could not file Form No.10CCB due to technical problems and Assessee had raised grievance. Therefore, Assessee was prevented from filing Form No.10CCB. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.634/PUN/2025 [A] 5 4.4 Respectfully following the decision of ITAT Pune, since the Form No.10CCB was filed before the return was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act, we hold that assessee cannot be denied the deduction u/s.80IA(4)(iv) of the Act, for delay in filling Form No.10CCB. Accordingly, Ground Numbers 1, 2 & 6 raised by the assessee are allowed. The Ground Numbers 3, 4, 5 & 7 becomes academic in nature, accordingly, dismissed as unadjudicated. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30 July, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- MS.ASTHA CHANDRA Dr.DIPAK P. RIPOTE JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 30 July, 2025/ SGR आदेशकᳱᮧितिलिपअᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, concerned. 5. िवभागीयᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “बी” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅफ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे/ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "