IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3014/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year :2021-22 Akry Organics Private Vs. Centralised Processing Limited Center (CPC) Bengaluru A/318, Ahura Centre Present Jurisdiction: 82, Mahakali Caves Deputy Commissioner Road of Income Tax, Central Andheri East Circle 1(1)(1), Mumbai Mumbai – 400 093 PAN/GIR No.AAACA6005E (Appellant) .. (Respondent Assessee by Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue by Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav Date of Hearing 17/06/2025 Date of Pronouncement 04/09/2025 / O R D E R आदेश PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M):

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 05/03/2025 passed by JCIT / Addl.CIT(A) Chennai, arising from the adjustment made under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (―the Act‖)

for the assessment year 2021–22.

2. In substance, the grievance raised by the assessee is directed against the denial of deduction under section 80-IA amounting to ₹17,40,75,413/–. The disallowance has been made solely on the ground that there was a delay in furnishing the prescribed audit report in Form No. 10CCB within the statutory or extended due date.

3. The material facts relevant to the controversy may be delineated at the outset. During the year under consideration, one of the undertakings of the assessee company, situated at Tarapur, Maharashtra, was engaged in the business of generation of power for captive consumption. The profits and gains derived from this undertaking were, by express statutory mandate, eligible for deduction under section 80- IA(4) of the Act. In terms thereof, the assessee claimed deduction under section 80-IA to the tune of ₹17,40,75,413/– being 100% of the profits derived from the said eligible business.

3.1. To comply with the requirement of section 80-IA(7), the assessee caused the accounts of the undertaking to be audited by a chartered accountant in the prescribed Form No. 10CCB. The said form was duly verified, digitally signed, and furnished online by the chartered accountant, and thereafter approved by the assessee company.

3.2. The assessee filed its original return of income for the assessment year 2021–22 on 28/12/2021. In this return, the assessee declared total income of ₹46,17,06,240/– under the normal provisions of the Act, and book profit of ₹51,56,89,003/– under section 115JB. It is an admitted position that in the said original return, the assessee did not make any claim of deduction under section 80-IA, nor was Form No. 10CCB annexed or filed along with it.

3.3. Subsequently, the assessee availed its statutory right under section 139(5) to file a revised return of income for the said assessment year. The revised return was filed on 31/03/2022, declaring a reduced income of ₹28,76,30,831/– under the normal provisions, while book profit under section 115JB remained unchanged at ₹51,56,89,003/–. Along with this revised return, the assessee also uploaded Form No.

10CCB which had been signed and dated 29/03/2022.

3.4. Upon processing of the revised return, the CPC, Bengaluru, issued a show-cause notice to the assessee, pointing out that the claim under section 80-IA appeared to be incorrect inasmuch as the prescribed Form 10CCB had not been filed within the original or extended due date. It was indicated that, in the absence of such timely filing, the deduction could not be allowed.

3.5. In response, the assessee submitted a detailed explanation. It was contended that a series of judicial pronouncements, including those of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as various High Courts, have consistently held that the requirement of furnishing the prescribed audit report is procedural in nature. The assessee stated that the audit report, if furnished at any stage during the assessment proceedings, constitutes sufficient compliance and cannot be treated as fatal to the claim. Reliance was specifically placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad Hig