Built Up v. ADIT

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: 80-IB(10)

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Delayed Form 10CCB; deduction claim: The dispute concerns a housing-project deduction where Form 10CCB was furnished after the original filing but before processing. The reported approach treats the timing of the form as a procedural question rather than automatically defeating substantive eligibility.

Material facts and background

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a partnership

firm engaged in the business of builders and developers. It filed its return of income on 27.10.2018, which is prior to 31.10.2018 the extended date of filing return of income, declaring income of Rs.Nil after claiming deduction of Rs.51,15,435/- u/s 80IB(10) of the IT Act. However, the audit report in Form 10CCB dated 05.10.2018 with respect to claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act was uploaded on 13.12.2018 instead of on or before the due date i.e. 31.10.2018. The CPC vide order dated 04.07.2019 disallowed the claim u/s 80IB(10) of the Act on the ground that Form No.10CCB

was not filed along with return of income or was filed beyond the due date for filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act. The assessee filed a rectification application dated 06.06.2020 with the CPC which was rejected vide order dated 12.07.2020. The assessee filed another rectification application dated 19.04.2021 which was also rejected by the CPC vide order dated 11.05.2021. 5.

Being aggrieved with the above intimation order dated

04.07.2019 passed by CPC u/s 143(1) of the IT Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). It was submitted before Ld. CIT(A) that although the audit report in Form No.10CCB was belatedly filed on 13.12.2018, however, the same was filed much before 04.07.2019 when the processing was done by CPC u/s 143(1) of the IT Act and therefore, it was requested to allow the deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the IT Act. It was submitted that filing of Form 10CCB is a procedural provision and therefore, the rigors of substantive provisions are not applicable.

decisions, it was argued that where Form No.10CCB was filed before completion of the assessment, the same is to be considered as in compliance to the requirement of the Act. After considering the reply and submissions of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the

appeal filed by the assessee and upheld the intimation order passed by CPC. 6.

Appellant / assessee submissions

deductions hence not applicable to the facts of the instant case. The judgement passed by Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Rohan Korgaonkar vs. DCIT (2024) 159 taxmann.com 321 (Bombay) and the decision passed by coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of New Balance IT Services India P. Ltd. in ITA No.245 & 246/PUN/2024 order dated 05.06.2024 are also relied on by Ld. DR, however in both the above cases the facts are different hence not applicable to the facts of the instant case in hand. We further find that Ld. DR also relied on the decision passed by a coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Pradeep Kumar Batra vs. DCIT in ITA No.6384/DEL/2019 order dated 23.10.2020. On the other hand, Ld. AR relied on the latest decision passed by jurisdictional coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Desai Infra Projects (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT in ITA No.1852/PUN/2024 order dated 30.12.2024 wherein under similar circumstances the Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the assessee after placing reliance in the case of GM Knitting Industries Pvt. Ltd. by observing as under :“6.3. We find the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Tarasafe International (P.)...

Revenue / respondent submissions

within the prescribed time limit. After hearing Ld. DR, we condone the delay of 76 days and proceed to adjudicate the appeal. 3.

“5. We have heard Ld. counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the case laws furnished by the rival parties. In this regard, we find that admittedly Form No.10CCB audit report was not furnished along with return of income, however the same was furnished in response to the communication sent by the CPC. We also find that Form No.10CCB audit report was furnished well before passing of 143(1) intimation order. Ld. DR appearing from side of the Revenue relied on various judgements passed by Hon’ble Courts and also relied on some decisions passed by coordinate benches of this Tribunal. In this regard, we find that the judgement passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Wipro Ltd. (2022) 140 taxmann.com 223 (SC) and the judgement passed by Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in the case of Discoverture Solutions (India) (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2023) 147 taxmann.com 262 (Orissa) are related to exemption and not

deductions hence not applicable to the facts of the instant case. The judgement passed by Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Rohan Korgaonkar vs. DCIT (2024) 159 taxmann.com 321 (Bombay) and the decision passed by coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of New Balance IT Services India P. Ltd. in ITA No.245 & 246/PUN/2024 order dated 05.06.2024 are also relied on by Ld. DR, however in both the above cases the facts are different hence not applicable to the facts of the instant case in hand. We further find that Ld. DR also relied on the decision passed by a coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Pradeep Kumar Batra vs. DCIT in ITA No.6384/DEL/2019 order dated 23.10.2020. On the other hand, Ld. AR relied on the latest decision passed by jurisdictional coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Desai Infra Projects (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT in ITA No.1852/PUN/2024 order dated 30.12.2024 wherein under similar circumstances the Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the assessee after placing reliance in the case of GM Knitting Industries Pvt. Ltd. by observing as under :“6.3. We find the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Tarasafe International (P.)...

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

04.07.2019 passed by CPC u/s 143(1) of the IT Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). It was submitted before Ld. CIT(A) that although the audit report in Form No.10CCB was belatedly filed on 13.12.2018, however, the same was filed much before 04.07.2019 when the processing was done by CPC u/s 143(1) of the IT Act and therefore, it was requested to allow the deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the IT Act. It was submitted that filing of Form 10CCB is a procedural provision and therefore, the rigors of substantive provisions are not applicable.

the material available on record including the paper book furnished by the assessee as well as copy of order passed by coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of assessee itself for assessment year 2019-20 involving the similar issue of disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the IT Act on the ground of belated filing of Form 10CCB audit report. In this regard, we find that in the case of assessee for assessment year 2019-20 similar disallowance was made u/s 80IB(10) of the IT Act on the ground of belated filing of Form 10CCB audit report, however, the Tribunal allowed the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the IT Act, since Form 10CCB audit report was furnished prior to processing of return of income by observing as under :“10. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. Addl / JCIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find the CPC in its communication u/s 143(1a) dated 12.12.2019 and intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 29.05.2020 disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act on the ground that Form...

filed along with the return or was filed beyond the due date for filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act where the due date was 31.10.2019. We find the Ld. Addl / JCIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground that the assessee filed its ITR on 18.10.2019. Since the assessee claimed deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act, therefore, the assessee is required to file the audit report in Form No.10CCB one month prior to the due date for furnishing the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act electronically. Since the assessee has not filed the audit report in Form No.10CCB one month prior to the due date for furnishing the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, therefore, the assessee is not eligible to get the deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that although the audit report in Form No.10CCB was filed on 11.12.2019, however, the same was filed before processing was done u/s 143(1) of the Act and therefore, it was validly filed. It is also his submission that filing of Form is a procedural provision and therefore, the rigors of substantive provisions are not applicable. 11. We find some force in the above arguments of...

12. We find an identical issue had come up before the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sahyadri Farmers Producer Company Limited vs. ACIT (supra) where the Tribunal allowed the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(11A) of the Act on the ground that since the audit report in Form No.10CCB was furnished prior to the furnishing of return. The relevant observations of the Tribunal from para 5 onwards read as under:

“5. We have heard Ld. counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the case laws furnished by the rival parties. In this regard, we find that admittedly Form No.10CCB audit report was not furnished along with return of income, however the same was furnished in response to the communication sent by the CPC. We also find that Form No.10CCB audit report was furnished well before passing of 143(1) intimation order. Ld. DR appearing from side of the Revenue relied on various judgements passed by Hon’ble Courts and also relied on some decisions passed by coordinate benches of this Tribunal. In this regard, we find that the judgement passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Wipro Ltd. (2022) 140 taxmann.com 223 (SC) and the judgement passed by Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in the case of Discoverture Solutions (India) (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2023) 147 taxmann.com 262 (Orissa) are related to exemption and not

Operative decision and relief

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on this 22nd day of July, 2026. Sd/-

signed by Sujeet Sujeet Kumar Digitally Kumar Sharma Date: 2026.07.22 14:20:46 Sharma +05'30'

अपीलाथ / The Appellant. यथ / The Respondent. The Addl./JCIT(A), Jodhpur. The Pr. CIT/CIT concerned. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “A” बच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune.

Authorities and precedents appearing in the judgment

• Company Limited vs. ACIT (supra) where the Tribunal allowed the
• Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Wipro Ltd. (2022) 140 taxmann.com 223 (SC) and the
• Discoverture Solutions (India) (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2023) 147
• Rohan Korgaonkar vs. DCIT (2024) 159 taxmann.com
• Pradeep Kumar Batra vs. DCIT in ITA
• Projects (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT in ITA No.1852/PUN/2024 order
• Pr. CIT vs. Wipro Ltd
• Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Wipro Lid 120221 140 taxmann.com 223/288 Tasman

This list is machine-assisted from the judgment text and is not a substitute for checking the full citation chain in the PDF.

Ratio and legal principle

The decision turns on Delayed Form 10CCB; deduction claim. The operative result is classified as Quashed / set aside. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.

Why this judgment matters

The case is relevant to taxpayers, advisers and litigators dealing with Delayed Form 10CCB; deduction claim. Its practical value lies in the interaction between the statutory text, the evidentiary record and the procedural route followed in this case.

Practitioner action points

• Use the judgment as a fact-specific precedent: match the statutory version, assessment period, procedural stage and evidentiary record before relying on the result.
• Check whether a later High Court/Supreme Court order has affirmed, reversed, distinguished or rendered the decision academic.
• For litigation, attach the full judgment/order to the working paper and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition rather than relying on a headnote alone.

Full judgment and source trail

Read / download the clean local judgment copy

Related Finin2min guidance