आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ (cid:1)यायपीठ, चे(cid:9)ई।

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI (cid:1)ी एबी टी. वक(cid:10), (cid:11)ाियक सद(cid:17) एव ं

(cid:1)ी मनोज कु मार अtiवाल, लेखा सद(cid:7) के सम(cid:29)

BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRIMANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos. 1404 & 1405/Chny/2023 िनधा(cid:11)रण वष(cid:11)/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 M/s. Indo National Limited, v. ACIT, No.77, 3^rd Floor, Pottipati Plaza, Corporate Circle -2(2), Nungambakkam, Chennai.

Chennai – 600 034. [PAN: AAACI2291L (अपीलाथ(cid:14)/Appellant) ((cid:15)(cid:16)यथ(cid:14)/Respondent)

अपीलाथ(cid:14) क(cid:18) ओर स/े Appellant by : Mr. NR. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate (cid:15)(cid:16)यथ(cid:14) क(cid:18) ओर स े /Respondent by : Mr. S. Sundar Rajan, JCIT सुनवाईक(cid:18)तारीख/Date of Hearing : 01.01.2025 घोषणाक(cid:18)तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 19.03.2025 आदशे / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:

These appeals preferred by the assessee company against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter in short "the Ld.CIT(A)”), Delhi, dated 30.06.2023 for the Assessment Years (hereinafter in short "AY”) 2015-16 & 2016-17.

2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there is a delay of ‘93’ days in filing of these appeals for the AYs 2015-16 & 2016-17 and that was because assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing it on time. Hence, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed for condonation of delay, for which, the Ld.DR objects; however having taking note of the reasons for delay, we find it adequate to excuse the delay. Hence, we condone the delay of ‘93’ days and proceed to adjudicate both the appeals on merits.

3. First, we will take up appeal for AY 2015-16 in ITA No.1404/Chny/2023. It is noted that Ground no.1 is general in nature, therefore, it doesn’t require any adjudication. Ground No.2 is regarding disallowance of weighted deduction of Rs.19,78,33/- claimed u/s 35(2AB)

of the Act since expenditure was not approved by the DSIR in Form 3CL.

4. Brief facts are that, the assessee a public limited company filed its Return of Income (in short “RoI") for AY 2015-16 on 30.11.2015 admitting total income of Rs.27,34,34,800/-. Later, the RoI was selected for scrutiny, and the AO framed the assessment on 30.12.2017 and assessed total income of Rs.30,59,75,636/-. The AO noted that, the assessee has claimed an amount of Rs.19,78,332/- by way of weighted deduction u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act. According to the AO, as per section 35(2AB) of the Act, if a company is engaged in any business of biotechnology or of manufacture or production of any article (not being an article or thing specified in 11^th Schedule), an amount equal to two times (200%) of the expenditure incurred on scientific research shall be allowed as deduction. According to the AO, for claiming deduction u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act, the assessee had to enter into an agreement with the prescribed authority for co-operation in such research and development facility and the prescribed authority [prescribed authority is Secretary, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR)] who shall submit its report in relation to the approval of the expenditure incurred by the said facility to the Ld. PCIT or other authorities. However, according to the AO, the assessee did not furnish the approval received in Form 3CL from the DSIR. Therefore, according to him, the assessee was not eligible to claim deduction u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act. The AO accordingly only allowed the normal deduction for the actual revenue expenditure of Rs.9,89,166/- out of total claim of Rs.19,78,332/-, and the weighted component of Rs.9,89,166/- was disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who was pleased to dismiss the same and confirmed the action of the AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is before us.

4.1 We have heard both the parties