2024 (3) TMI 818 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction u/s 80IA - claim rejected on non-filing of Form 10CCB alongwith return of income - CIT(A) deleting the disallowance u/s 80IA holding that filing of Form 10CCB within the specified date as provided in section 80IA(7) of the act is not mandatory but directory in nature - HELD THAT - On going through the contents of the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) we observe that the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is a non-speaking order in which the Ld. CIT(A) has not analyzed the relevant judicial precedents on the subject as applicable to the assessee s set of facts. Further, it is observed that Ld. CIT(A) has simply accepted the version of the assessee without independently applying his mind to the facts of the case. The Ld. CIT(A) has not even considered the impact of Supreme Court judgment in the case of Wipro Ltd. 2022 (7) TMI 560 - SUPREME COURT which was passed prior to date as passing of order by Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, looking into the instant facts, in the interest of justice, the matter is being restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de-novo consideration - Appeal of the Department is allowed for statistical purpose.

Summary

Issues involved:
The appeal filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi regarding the disallowance of deduction under Section 80IA of the Act for Assessment Year 2019-20.

Grounds of Appeal:
1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 6,74,36,587/- u/s 80IA of the Act.
2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not giving due cognizance to the provisions of section 80IA(7) of the Act.
3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 6,74,36,587/- u/s 80IA of the Act.
4. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer.
5. The revenue craves leaves to add, amend, alter or withdraw any ground of appeal.

Summary of the Judgment:
The assessee filed its original return of income for A.Y. 2019-20 claiming deduction under Section 80IA of the Act. The Department disallowed the claim, but the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee based on the documents submitted. The Department appealed, arguing that the Ld. CIT(A) did not apply his mind and did not consider the mandatory requirement of filing Form 10CCB. The Counsel for the assessee argued that non-filing of Form 10CCB along with the return does not warrant rejection of the claim. The ITAT observed that the Ld. CIT(A) did not analyze the relevant judicial precedents and directed a fresh order considering all aspects.

Conclusion:
The ITAT allowed the appeal of the Department for statistical purposes and directed the matter to be restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh order after considering the relevant judicial precedents.