AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Commissioner Of Income Tax/National Faceless Appeal Centre [for short, ‘CIT(A)/NFAC’], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2026-27/1088387707(1) dated 10.04.2026 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
Next comes the sole substantive issue between the parties. Learned counsel representing the assessee invites the tribunal’s attention to the assessment order herein dated 23.12.2016 denying section 80IA(4) deduction of Rs. 22,42,655/- for the twin reasons of belated return filed beyond the due date and holding it as a sub-contractor; respectively, as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.
Both the parties vehemently reiterate their respective stands against and in support of the impugned section 80IA(4) deduction disallowance. A perusal of the case file record indicates that the assessee has already succeeded on the very issue in the succeeding assessment years 2017-18 and 2020-21 before the learned CIT(A) as per exhibit E and F at the pages 6 to 39 herein.
Faced with this situation, the Revenue vehemently submits that once the assessee had filed its return beyond the prescribed “due” date, its case is hit by section 80A(5) of the Act. This tribunal does not find merit in the instant latter technical argument once the assessee has filed its return; albeit belatedly as well, going by the case law Chirakkal Services Co-op Bank Ltd. vs CIT (2016) 68 taxmann.com 298 (Kerala). I thus accept the assessee’s sole substantive grievance claiming section 80IA(4) deduction in very terms therefore.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed.