Cargill Business Services India Private Limited vs DCIT, Circle 1(1), Gurgaon

PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 29.03.2025 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai, (hereinafter referred to as the ld. First Appellate Authority or ‘the Ld. FAA’ for short) in Appeal No.ADDL/JCIT(A)-5 MUMBAI/10057/2022-23 arising out of the appeal before it against the order dated 31.12.2024 passed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) by the AO, CPC (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO).

On hearing both the sides, we find that the return of the assessee was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act, wherein deduction claimed u/s 10AA of the Act was disallowed on the basis that Form 56F has been filed after the due date. The ld. Counsel submitted that the same was duly signed by the auditor within the due date and the filing of the online form was delayed by two days due to some technical glitch, otherwise, the return would have been filed well within the due date. As with regard to such situations especially arising out of delayed filing of Form 56F, the Hon’ble Madras High Court in TCA No.87 of 2025, PCIT vs. Astrotech Steels Private Ltd., vide order dated 03.06.2025, has dismissed the appeal of the Revenue whereby the Revenue had challenged the first appellate order by which it was held that filing of this Form 56F was only a procedural lapse and cannot be a ground for not granting deduction claimed u/s 10AA of the Act. Thus, in the absence of any law of the jurisdictional High Court against the assessee, we consider it appropriate to follow the principle and allow the ground as raised. The impugned disallowance shall be allowed by the AO in accordance with the law by passing a fresh order. The appeal is allowed.