Madras High Court
The Principal Commissioner Of Income ... vs Astrotech Steels Private Limited on 3 June, 2025
2025:MHC:1252
TCA No.87 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.06.2025
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.K.R.SHRIRAM, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
TCA No. 87 of 2025
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1
Chennai.
Appellant(s)
Vs
Astrotech Steels Private Limited
No.19, II Floor, Right Wing,
Ghatala Towers, Avenue, Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.
Respondent(s)
Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961
against the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “C” Bench,
Chennai, dated 03.07.2024 passed in I.T.A No.1150/Chny/2018.
For Appellant(s): Mr.T.Ravikumar,
Senior Standing Counsel
__________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 04:06:21 pm )
TCA No.87 of 2025
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
This appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961
[“the Act”] impugns an order pronounced on 3.7.2024 by the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Chennai, on various grounds.
2. The following two substantial questions of law have been
proposed:
“1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,
the Tribunal was justified in allowing the assessee's claim of
deduction under Section 10AA especially when the assessee had
failed to file the statutory Form 56F within the time limit
prescribed by the statute?
2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that filing of
Form 56F was directory in nature by placing reliance in the case
of CIT (E) v. Gujarat Energy Development Agency1 , which is
contrary to the direction of the Apex Court while dealing with
10B(8) in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v.
Wipro Limited2 and also in the case of Review Petition filed in
2 (2022) 446 ITR 1
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 04:06:21 pm )
Wipro Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax3,
wherein it was held that the twin conditions of furnishing the
declaration to the Assessing Officer in writing and that the same
must be furnished before the due date for filing of the return of
income under Section 139(1) of the IT Act must be satisfied,
whereas assessee failed to do while claiming deduction under
Section 10B?”
3. Assessee had filed return of income on 16.10.2018 for assessment
year 2018-2019 declaring a total income of Rs.17,57,73,823/- and the
return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Assessee had
claimed deduction under Section 10AA of the Act amounting to
Rs.7,48,71,926/-. While processing the return under Section 143(1) of the
Act, the deduction claimed by assessee under Section 10AA was disallowed,
since the audit report in Form 56F, which is to be filed along with the
return, was not filed by assessee. Assessee had filed a rectification
application under Section 154 of the Act and a rectification order dated
28.1.2021 was passed rejecting the claim of the assessee.
4. The said order was challenged before the Commissioner of Income
3 (2022) 289 Taxmann.com 621 (SC)
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 04:06:21 pm )
Tax (Appeals) by way of an appeal. The appeal was allowed by the CIT(A),
who observed that the delay in filing Form 56F was only a procedural lapse
and that cannot be a ground for not granting the deduction claimed under
Section 10AA of the Act. The order passed by the CIT(A) was affirmed by
the ITAT.
5. The prescribed date for filing Form 56F was 31.10.2018 and,
admittedly, assessee had filed it on 20.12.2018. Counsel was unable to
show any provision which provides that after the due date an assessee is
barred from filing Form 56F. Admittedly, Form 56F was filed and, in effect,
the delay in filing has been condoned.
6. We agree with the ITAT that the facts in the case of Principal
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Wipro Ltd (supra) were different. In that
case, assessee initially made the claim and did not seek to carry forward
losses, but during the assessment proceedings, the assessee had taken an
altogether different stand and sought withdrawal of the initial deduction
claimed in the return of income and sought to carry forward losses. In the
case at hand, the deduction under Section 10AA of the Act has been claimed
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 04:06:21 pm )
in the original return of income which was filed within the prescribed time,
but Form 56F was filed about 50 days later.
7. Assessee having duly fulfilled the substantial requirement as well
as the procedural requirement, though there is a minor technical breach in
fulfillment of the procedural requirement, the CIT(A) as well as the ITAT
have opined that the delay in filing Form 56F would not be fatal to the
substantive claim of the assessee. In fact, what has also weighed in the
mind of the ITAT is that the same claim had been allowed to assessee and
this was the sixth assessment year of claiming the amount of deduction.
8. In these circumstances, in our view, no substantial question of law
arises.
Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(K.R.SHRIRAM, CJ.) (SUNDER MOHAN, J.)
03.06.2025
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 04:06:21 pm )
Index : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes
sasi
To:
1. The Assistant Registrar
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
Chennai Benches, Chennai.
2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)
National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)
Income Tax Department, Ministry of Finance
Government of India, New Delhi.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 04:06:21 pm )
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
SUNDER MOHAN,J.
(sasi)
03.06.2025
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 04:06:21 pm )
