IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.64/PUN/2025 िनधा(cid:6981)रण वष(cid:6981) / Assessment Year : 2022-23 Kisanmitra Warehousin g Vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru.

Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.B-113, 114, 115, 117, Additional MIDC, Latur- 413531.

PAN : AAECK0739A Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Subham Rathi (Virtual)

Revenue by : Shri Bharat Andhale (Virtual)

Date of hearing : 19.02.2026 Date of pronouncement : 27.04.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 18.11.2024 passed by Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)- 4, Chennai [‘Ld.

CIT(A)’] for the assessment year 2022-23.

2. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :-

“1. ADDITION IN THE INTIMATION U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT

1.1 The Learned Addl/JCIT (A)-4, Chennai [‘the Ld. JCIT(A)’] has erred in confirming the jurisdiction of The Learned Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru, to make the adjustment in the intimation u/s 143(1) with respect to deduction claimed in return of income u/s 80IB of the Act.

1.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, adjustment of disallowing the deduction claimed u/s 80IB in the return of income is beyond the scope of section 143(1) and therefore, the disallowance made is illegal and invalid.

1.3 In the above circumstances, it is humbly prayed to set aside the order passed by the Ld. JCIT(A).

2. THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION OF RS.4,13,90,997/-

U/S 80 – IB OF THE ACT

2.1 The Ld. JCIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of the deduction claimed in return of income filed u/s 139(1) of the Act of Rs.4,13,90,997/- u/s 80-IB of the Act.

2.2 The Ld. JCIT(A) has erred in not considering the submission that filing of Form 10CCB is directory in nature and no mandatory.

2.3 On the facts and circumstances of the case and on merits, such disallowance is bad, illegal and deserves to be deleted.

3. LEAVE The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.”

3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in integrated business of handling, storage and transportation of food-grains. The assessee company filed its return of income u/s 139(1) of the IT Act on 18.10.2022 declaring an income of Rs.2,55,97,550/- after claiming deduction u/s 80IB(11A) of the IT Act of Rs.4,13,90,997/-. The Tax Audit Report u/s 44AB of the IT Act for the year under consideration was filed on 30.09.2022, however Form 10CCB was filed on 18.10.2022 i.e. with a delay of 11 days since the extended due date for filing of Form 10CCB was 07.10.2022. Subsequently, the return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the IT Act by CPC on 16.03.2023 wherein deduction of Rs.4,13,90,997/- claimed u/s 80IB(11A) of the IT Act was disallowed on the ground of delayed filing of Form

10CCB.

4. Being aggrieved with the above intimation order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). After considering the reply and submissions of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance of Rs.4,13,90,997/- claimed u/s 80IB(11A) of the Act by relying on judgement passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Wipro Ltd. and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

5. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

6. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the side and perused the material available on record including the paper book and case laws furnished by the assessee. In this regard, we find that Form 10CCB was prepared on 30.09.2022, however could not be uploaded on income tax portal on 07.10.2022 which was the extended due date due to technical glitches as claimed by the assessee, however the same was uploaded on 18.10.2022. We further find that when the return of income was uploaded on portal i.e. on 18.10.2022, Form 10CCB was also uploaded along with the above return of income. Subsequently on 16