##PAGE1##

आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण Ûयायपीठ “एक-सदèय” मामला रायपरु म(cid:581)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR

(cid:302)ी पाथ (cid:91) सारथी चौधर(cid:547), Ûया(cid:467)यक सदèय के सम¢

BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.766/RPR/2025

(cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रण वष (cid:91) /Assessment Year : 2024-25

LS Metatech Private Limited

109, 1st Floor, Meghdoot Complex,

Behind Vandana Bhawan, M. G. Road,

Raipur (C.G.)-492 001

PAN: AADCL5735B

.......अपीलाथ(cid:568) / Appellant

बनाम / V/s.

The Income Tax Officer,

Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

……(cid:292)×यथ(cid:568) / Respondent

Assessee by : Shri Shubham B Mehta, CA

Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

सुनवाई क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख / Date of Hearing : 19.12.2025

घोषणा क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख / Date of Pronouncement : 22.12.2025

2

LS Metatech Private Limited Vs. ITO, Circle-1(1), Raipur

ITA No.766/RPR/2025

आदेश/ ORDER

PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM

The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the

order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, dated 21.11.2025 for the assessment

year 2024-25 as per the following grounds of appeal:

“Ground No. 1:

l. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the

Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.

41,46,023/- made by the Ld. AO by disallowing the

deduction claimed u/s 80-IAC of the Act on the alleged

ground that the audit report in Form 10CCB was not filed at

least one month prior to the due date for furnishing return of

income u/s 139(1) of the Act (“the specified due date”).

2. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate and ought to have

considered, inter-alia, the following:

a. the requirement of filing of Form 10CCB is directory in

nature and failure to e-file the same before the specified due

date is merely a procedural lapse;

b. Form 10CCB was obtained and filed on the income-tax e-

filing portal within the extended due date of filing ROI;

c. the Form 10CCB was available on record before the Ld. AO

while passing of the impugned Order.

3. The Appellant prays that the deduction u/s 80-IAC of the

Act be granted and the addition of Rs.41,46,023/- kindly be

deleted.

GROUND NO. 2:

l. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the

Ld. A.O erred in levying consequential interest liability u/s

234B and 234C of the Act of Rs.80,254/- and Rs.38,622/

respectively.

3

LS Metatech Private Limited Vs. ITO, Circle-1(1), Raipur

ITA No.766/RPR/2025

2. The Appellant prays that the AO be directed to delete the

interest u/s. 234B & 234C of the Act.

GROUND NO. 3:

The Appellant craves leaves to add to, alter, amend and/or

delete the above grounds of appeal.”

2. The relevant facts are that the assessee had claimed deduction

u/s.80IAC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) in its return of

income for A.Y.2024-25, but the A.O had denied the same on the ground

that Form 10CCB was not filed within the specified due date. In other

words, as per Section 80-IA(7) of the Act, the deduction claimed shall not

be admissible unless the accounts of the undertaking for the previous

year relevant to the assessment year, for which, the deduction is claimed,

have been audited by an accountant as defined in the Explanation to sub-

section (2) of Section 288 of the Act before the specified date referred to in

Section 44AB and the assessee furnishes by that date, the report of such

audit in the prescribed form duly singed and verified by such accountant.

The relevant provision of Section 80-IA(7) of the Act is extracted as follows:

“80-IA. Deductions in respect of profit and gains from

industrial undertakings or enterprises engaged in

infrastructure development, etc.

xxxx

(7) The deduction under sub-section (1) from profits and

gains derived from an undertaking shall not be admissible

unless the accounts of the undertaking for the previous year

relevant to the assessment year for which the deduction is

claimed have been audited by an accountant, as defined in

the Explanation below sub-section (2) of section 288, [before

4

LS M