IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील स.ं /ITA No.1119/SRT/2024 Assessment Year: (2021-22)

(Hybrid Hearing)

Orchid Corp., Vs. ITO, F-11, Orchid Ventura, Nr. New LP Ward - 1(1)(1), Savani School, Palanpore Canal Surat Road, Surat - 395009 èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AAFFO2395F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by Shri Suresh K. Kabra, CA Respondent by Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 31/07/2025 Date of Pronouncement 29/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, AM:

This appeal by the assessee emanates from the order passed under section

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) dated 22.08.2024 by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in short ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment year (AY) 2021-22.

2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:

“1. The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC has erred and was not jut and proper on the facts of the case and in law in confirming the not allowing of the deduction u/s 80IBA of the Act for filing the ROI delayed by 01 (one) day beyond the due date, resulting into addition of Rs.12,04,09,633/-.

2. Prayer

2.1 The additions/disallowances may kindly be deleted.

2.3 Personal hearing maybe granted.

2.3 Any other relief that your honours may deem fit may be granted.

3. The assessee craves leave to add, amend, modify alter or delete any of the grounds at the time of hearing.”

3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed its return of income for AY 2021-22 on 16.03.2022 declaring total income of Rs.5,49,44,320/-. The assessee filed the return one day after the extended due date of filing, i.e., 15.03.2022. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 12.12.2022 wherein disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80IBA of the Act was made because the return was furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139 of the Act. The assessee vide rectification petition dated 23.01.2023 stated that there was a mistake in the said intimation, which was apparent from record within the meaning of section 154 of the Act. The request for rectification u/s 154 of the Act was rejected by the Central Processing Centre (CPC) vide order dated 24.04.2023 because claim of deduction u/s 80IBA was made in the return, which was filed beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139 of the Act. The AO – CPC, accordingly, issued demand notice of Rs.3,87,47,550/- by disallowed deduction u/s 80IBA of Rs.12,04,09,632/-.

4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) issued various notices of hearing u/s 250 of the Act. In response, the assessee submitted its reply, which is at pages 3 to 4 of the appellate order. The assessee contended that it satisfies all conditions for claim of deduction u/s 80IBA and that there was only a one-day delay in filing the return and that there was a genuine cause for the delay. The assessee had however, filed the audit report before filing the return of income. The CIT(A)

referred to the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of PCIT vs. Wipro Ltd., (2022) 140 taxmann.com 223 (SC) and held that for claiming the benefit u/s 10B(8), both conditions of furnishing the declaration and to file the same before the due date of filing the original return of income are mandatory in nature. The CIT(A) held that though the decision was rendered in the context of section 10B(8) of the Act, it is equally applicable for claim of deduction u/s 80IBA of the Act. The provision of section 80AC of the Act is clear and unambiguous. The deductions under Chapter VI-A cannot be allowed, if the assessee does not file a return of income on or before the due date specified in section 139(1) of the Act. The appellant failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of section 80AC and hence, the appellant was not entitled to claim deduction u/s 80IBA of the Act.