9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 1659X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enough to deny the claim of deduction u/s 80IC. More so, when in response to the first proposed adjustment, the assessee has reiterated submission of Form 10CCB. As far as the arguments raised by the ld. D/R is concerned, if a disallowance is to be made after filing of Form 10CCB, then it is a debatable issue and the same is not permissible u/s 143(1) in a prima facie adjustment and the assessee should have been given a notice for that. If a disallowance is required to be established by arguments and long drawn process of reasoning on points, which there may conceivably be two opinions about, then the case should have been selected for scrutiny assessment. Thus, we delete the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IC made by the AO and upheld by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of the assessee and made an adjustment in the assessment made as incorrect claim u/s 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. 4. Dissatisfied with the adjustment, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. First Appellate Authority. 5. The ld. First Appellate Authority has upheld the adjustment by observing as under:- I have carefully considered the facts of the case and submission of the appellant. Perusal of the adjustments memo shows that adjustment has been made for the following reason: In Schedule VI-A under Part-C deduction in respect of certain income in SI. No. 2.j deduction is claimed u/s.801C/801E without filing the corresponding schedule 80/C /801E/Form 10BBC OR Form 10 CCB has not been e-filed within the due date. Perusal of F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. G M Knitting Industries Pvt. Ltd. 376 ITR 456. He also relied upon the decisions of the ITAT Kolkata Bench in the case of M/s. Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. order dt. 14/09/2018 and decision of the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of M/s. Lancer Food Products vs. ITO dated 04/09/2017. On the strength of these decisions it was submitted before us that there is no lapse at the end of the assessee substantively because Form 10CCB was submitted before the adjustment was made by the Assessing Officer. 7. On the other hand, the ld. Sr. D/R submitted that firstly the assessee did obtain the audit report in Form 10CCB within the time limit prescribed and consequentially the ld. First Appellate A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
