The requirement to file an audit report under Section 80IA(7) of the Income Tax Act is procedural in nature; therefore, a delay in filing the audit report does not disqualify an assessee from claiming the deduction, provided the report is furnished before the completion of the assessment.

आदेश/ORDER

PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M. :

This appeal is filed by Shri Mulakala Mohan Krishna (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned ADDL/JCIT (A)-3, Chennai, (“Ld. First Appellate Authority”), dated 20.12.2024 for the A.Y. 2021-22.

At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 11 days in filing of this appeal. The assessee has filed a condonation petition along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. In this regard, the Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the impugned order was passed on 20.12.2024. Accordingly, the appeal was required to be filed on or before 28.02.2025. The assessee filed the appeal on 11.02.2025, well within the stipulated time; however, the same was inadvertently filed before the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal instead of the Hyderabad Bench which had jurisdiction. When the assessee opened the e-filing website on 10.03.2025, it came to notice that the Chennai ITAT had returned the appeal with a remark that the jurisdiction of the appeal lies with Hyderabad ITAT. Immediately thereafter, the assessee refiled the appeal with the Hyderabad ITAT on 11.03.2025. Thus, the delay of 11 days was caused only on account of an inadvertent mistake in selecting the wrong jurisdictional bench at the time of original filing. It was further submitted that there was no malafide intention on the part of the assessee, and the delay was purely due to a procedural error. The Ld. AR prayed before the bench for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal and admission of the appeal for adjudication.

Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) fairly submitted that he had no serious objection to the condonation of delay, considering that the assessee had initially filed the appeal within the stipulated period and the delay was due to a bona fide mistake.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts clearly show that the assessee had initially filed the appeal well within the prescribed time, but inadvertently filed it before the wrong Bench. On detection of this mistake, the appeal was promptly filed before the correct Bench after rectifying the error. The delay of 11 days is thus due to a procedural lapse without any malafide intention. Hence, we are of the view that the assessee has shown sufficient cause for the delay. Accordingly, the delay of 11 days in filing of the appeal is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :

1. The order of the Additional/Joint Commissioner (Appeals)-3, Chennai is erroneous, contrary to law and facts of the case.

2. The Additional/Joint Commissioner (Appeals)-3, Chennai erred in disallowing deduction of Rs.49,28,566 claimed by the assessee u/s.80(IA) of the Act.

3. The learned Additional/Joint Commissioner (Appeals)-3, Chennai ought to have appreciated that the audit report was filed and was available on record much before the date of filing of return of income.

4. The learned Additional/Joint Commissioner(Appeals)-3, Chennai ought to have considered and applied the ratio laid down in various cases decided by Hon'ble ITAT and courts and relied upon by the appellant wherein it has been held that it would constitute sufficient compliance if audit report in Form No.10CCB was filed before assessment or even at appellate stage so as to be eligible for deduction under section 80(IA).

5. The Learned Additional/Joint Commissioner(Appeals)-3, Chennai grossly erred in basing the decision on the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Customs( (Import), Mumbai vs Dilip Kumar And Company AIR 2018 SC 3606 in which case the question for examination of the constitution bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court was “What is the interpretative rule to be applied while interpreting a tax exemption provision/notification when there is an ambiguity as to its applicability” whereas there is no issue of ambi