"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA G. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.947/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2023-2024 Rolon Seals International, Hyderabad – 500 063. Telangana. PAN AARFR2216G vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(1), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधाŊįरती Ȫारा /Assessee by: Sri Sashank Dundu, Advocate राज̾ व Ȫारा /Revenue by: G Saratha, Sr. AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 27.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 10.12.2025 आदेश/ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT : This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 27.03.2025 of the learned Addl./JCIT(A)-6, Chennai, for the assessment year 2023-2024. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA.No.947/Hyd./2025 1. “The order passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)/NFAC is bad in law, in as much as the appellate authority merely supported the intimation issued by Assessing Officer/CPC, Bengaluru u/s 143(1) of the Act without appreciation of facts and legal position presented before him through statement of facts, grounds of appeal and written submissions. 2. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals)/NFAC erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.4,73,47,742/-made by the Assessing Officer referable to the deduction claimed u/s 10AA of the Act by incorrectly placing emphasis on the amended provisions of Sec. 10AA, which are applicable from 01.04.2024 i.e, A.Y. 2024-25 and not to the current assessment year i.e, 2023-24. 3. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals)/NFAC erred in not appreciating the fact that amendment to Sec. 10AA of the Act, imposing a condition that return of income needs to be filed within the time limit prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act for claiming deduction u/s 10AA of the Act was introduced vide Finance Act, 2023, which is applicable from A.Y. 2024-25 and not applicable to A.Y. 2023-24. Therefore, reliance placed on the amended provisions of Section 10AA of the Act by the Commissioner (Appeals), which are not applicable to the present assessment year is bad in law and clearly shows non application of mind. 4. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals)/NFAC ought to have considered and appreciated the written submissions placed on the record by the Appellant along with supporting material Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA.No.947/Hyd./2025 rather than disposing the Appeal mechanically overlooking the submissions placed on record. In fact there is no whisper about the contentions of the Appellant in the order passed u/s 250 of the Act by the Commissioner (Appeals). 5. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals)/NFAC ought to have appreciated the fact that necessary forms (Form 56F) for claiming deduction u/s 10AA of the Act was duly filed before passing the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act and thus deduction claimed by the Appellant cannot be disallowed even on this count. 6. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, the appellant submits that the Hon'ble ITAT may be pleased to quash the arbitrary adjustment made u/s 143(1) of the Act, which was upheld by the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, as it is bad in law.” 3. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the CPC while processing the return of income has denied the claim of deduction u/sec.10AA on the ground of delay in filing Form-56F. He has referred to the return of income filed by the assessee and submitted that the assessee has duly filed Form-56F along with the return of income on 19.12.2023 which is placed at Page-5 of the paper book. He has then referred to the Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA.No.947/Hyd./2025 intimation issued by the CPC u/sec.143(1)(a) and submitted that the CPC has given the reason for disallowing the claim of deduction u/sec.10AA that Form-56 is not filed, which is contrary to the record when the assessee has filed Form-56 along with the return of income and an acknowledgment is duly issued by e-filing system. Thus, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that due to date of filing the Form-56 was extended by the CBDT up-to 31.12.2023 which is also admitted by the CPC at page-13 of the paper book while giving the reasons for denial of deduction u/sec.10AA of the Act, then, the Form-56 filed on 19.12.2023 is within the period of due date of filing the said Form as extended by the CBDT. The learned AR has also referred to the Circular No.18/2023 dated 20.10.2023 issued by the CBDT whereby the time period for filing Form-56 was extended up- to 31.12.2023. Even the assessee has duly filed it’s reply explaining this fact to the CPC placed at page-14 of the paper book that Form-56 was filed along with the return of income on 19.12.2023, but, the CPC made the disallowance of the claim of deduction u/sec.10AA without considering the Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA.No.947/Hyd./2025 correct facts and record. He has then referred to the order of the learned CIT(A) and submitted that when all the relevant details, facts and material were available before the CPC as well as learned CIT(A) to confirm the disallowance by learned CIT(A) is not justified. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has further submitted that the Amendment in Sec.10AA is not applicable by the Finance Act, 2023 and is applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2024 and, therefore, the same is not applicable for the assessment year 2023-2024 under consideration. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Arvind Kumar Agarwal vs. ITO [2023] 149 taxmann.com 472 (Delhi-Trib.). Hence, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the disallowance made by the CPC and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) is highly unjustified and, therefore, the same is liable to be deleted and the claim of the assessee be allowed. 4. On the other hand, the learned DR relied upon the Orders of the authorities below and submitted that the learned CIT(A) has discussed this issue in detail. Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA.No.947/Hyd./2025 5. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. The CPC has disallowed the claim of deduction u/sec.10AA by giving reasons at page- 13 as under : 5.1. Thus, it is clear that CPC has acknowledged this fact that the due date for filing Form-56 for the assessment year under consideration was extended to 31.12.2023, but, the claim of the assessee was disallowed on the ground that the assessee has not filed Form-56. It is manifest from the Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA.No.947/Hyd./2025 record that the assessee has filed Form-56 along with the return of income on 19.12.2023 and due acknowledgment has been issued by the e-filing system of the Department as under: Printed from counselvise.com 8 ITA.No.947/Hyd./2025 5.2. Thus, it is a matter of record that the assessee has filed Form-56F on 19.12.2023, whereas the due date of filing the Form-56F was extended by the CBDT vide Circular No.18/2023 dated 20.10.2023 up-to 31.12.2023. This fact is not disputed by the Revenue and even the CPC has also acknowledged this fact of extension of due date of filing the Form-56F. Thus, the disallowance of claim of deduction u/sec.10AA by the CPC is highly arbitrary and contrary to the facts and record. The learned CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowance in Paras-4.4 and 4.5 as under : “4.4. It is quite apparent on bare perusal of section 10AA and 143(1)(a)(v) that If the assessee wants to avail deduction 10AA, he has to necessarily furnish the return of the income containing such claim before the due date specified u/s.139(1). Therefore, failure to furnish the return of income before the due date specified u/s.139(1) would disentitle the assessee for the claim of deduction u/s. 10AA and the claim of the assessee for deduction cannot be entertained in contravention of the provisions of section 10AA. 4.5. In the present case, the assessee has filed the return of income on 19.12.2023 which is beyond the due date of 31.10.2023 for the impugned assessment year. There is no dispute on this position. The date of filing of a return of income would be apparent on the face of return and upon a perusal thereof, it would be clear as to whether the return is a valid return, having been filed within the statutory time limit, or a belated one. This is mechanical exercise Printed from counselvise.com 9 ITA.No.947/Hyd./2025 and one that can be carried out by the CPC, very much within the scope of section 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. Since the return of Income is filed beyond the due date specified u/s.139(1), I do not find any reason to interfere with the disallowance made u/s, 143(1) of the IT Act 1961. The same stands confirmed. The grounds taken are dismissed.” 5.3. All these reasons given by the learned CIT(A) is based on the wrong presumption of the due date of filing the return as 31.10.2023 as against the due date extended up-to 31.12.2023. Accordingly, the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) as well as the disallowance made by the CPC is not sustainable and the same are set-aside. The claim of the assessee for deduction u/sec.10AA is allowed. Though the issue of applicability of the Amendment brought into sec.10AA vide Finance Act, 2023 is not involved in the present appeal, however, for the sake of completeness, we note that this Amendment is applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2024 and hence, the same is not applicable for the assessment year under consideration. The Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Arvind Kumar Agarwal vs. ITO (supra) has considered this issue and held in Paras-8 to 11 as under : Printed from counselvise.com 10 ITA.No.947/Hyd./2025 “8. On perusal of the CIT(A)'s finding extracted (supra), it is not forthcoming precisely why the denial of the deduction u/s 10AA of the L.T. Act is upheld. The CIT(A) has upheld the disallowance referring to sub-sections (5) & (6) of section 10A/10B of the 1.T. Act, which are applicable to the deduction u/s 10AA of the I.T. Act also. The provisions of sub-sections (5) & (6) of section 10A of the LT. Act shall apply to the exemption u/s 10AA of the I.T. Act also by virtue of sub-section (8) of section 10AA of the L.T. Act. However, these sub-sections of 10A do not prescribe the precondition of filing of return within the specified due date u/s 139(1) of the I.T. Act to be eligible for the benefit of section 10AA of the I.T. Act. Sub-section (8) of section 10AA of the 1.T. Act reads as follows:- \"(8) The provisions of sub-sections (5)62 and (6) of section 10A shall apply to the articles or things or services referred to in sub-section (1) as if- (a) for the figures, letters and word \"1st April, 2001\", the figures, letters and word \"1st April, 2006\" had been substituted; (b) for the word \"undertaking\", the words \"undertaking, being the Unit\" had been substituted.\" Printed from counselvise.com 11 ITA.No.947/Hyd./2025 9. Sub-sections (5) & (6) of section 10A of the I.T. Act applicable to the exemption u/s 10AA of the 1.T. Act reads as follows:- \"(5) The deduction under this section shall not be admissible for any assessment year beginning on or after the 1st day of April, 2001, unless the assessee furnishes in the prescribed form, 59[***] the report of an accountant, as defined in the Explanation below sub- section (2) of section 288 60 [before the specified date referred to in section 44AB], certifying that the deduction has been correctly claimed in accordance with the provisions of this section. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, in computing the total income of the assessee of the previous year relevant to the assessment year immediately succeeding the last of the relevant assessment years, or of any previous year, relevant to any subsequent assessment year,- (1) section 32, section 32A, section 33, section 35 and clause (ix) of sub-section (1) of section 36 shall apply as if every allowance or deduction referred to therein and relating to or allowable for any of the relevant assessment years ending before the 1st day of April, 2001, in relation to any Printed from counselvise.com 12 ITA.No.947/Hyd./2025 building, machinery, plant or furniture used for the purposes of the business of the undertaking in the previous year relevant to such assessment year or any expenditure incurred for the purposes of such business in such previous year had been given full effect to for that assessment year itself and accordingly sub-section (2) of section 32, clause (ii) of sub-section (3) of section 32A, clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 33, sub-section (4) of section 35 or the second proviso to clause (ix) of sub-section (1) of section 36, as the case may be, shall not apply in relation to any such allowance or deduction; (ii) no loss referred to in sub-section (1) of section 72 or sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) of section 74, in so far as such loss relates to the business of the undertaking. shall be carried forward or set off where such loss relates to any of the relevant assessment years ending before the 1st day of April, 2001; (iii) no deduction shall be allowed under section 80HH or section 80HHA or section 80-1 or section 80- IA or section 80-IB in relation to the profits and gains of the undertaking; and Printed from counselvise.com 13 ITA.No.947/Hyd./2025 (iv) in computing the depreciation allowance under section 32, the written down value of any asset used for the purposes of the business of the undertaking shall be computed as if the assessee had claimed and been actually allowed the deduction in respect of depreciation for each of the relevant assessment year.\" 10. Reading the above sub-sections, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has misread the provisions of sub- sections (5) & (6) of section 10A/10B of the 1.T. Act and confirmed the disallowance without noticing these sub- sections do not mandate that the return of income should be filed within the specified due date u/s 139(1) of the 1L.T. Act in order to be entitled to the said deduction u/s 10AA of the LT. Act. 11. From the aforesaid analysis, we hold that section 10AA of the I.T. Act has not mandated filing of return of income within the specified due date u/s 139(1) of the 1.T. Act as one of the conditions precedent for claiming the deduction. The conditions to be fulfilled in order to claim the exemption are stipulated in sub-section (2) of section 10AA of the 1.T. Act. Further, sub-section (4) has stipulated the conditions which ought not to be violated in order that an undertaking is not disentitled from claiming the exemption under the section. It is not the Printed from counselvise.com 14 ITA.No.947/Hyd./2025 case of the Revenue for disallowing the claim u/s 10AA of the 1.T. Act that the assessee has not fulfilled or violated any of the conditions mentioned in sub-sections (2) and (4) of section 10AA of the 1.T. Act.” 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, we allow the claim of the assessee u/sec.10AA of the Act. 7. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 10.12.2025. Sd/- Sd/- [MANJUNATHA G.] [VIJAY PAL RAO] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Hyderabad, Dated 10th December, 2025 VBP Copy to : 1. Rolon Seals International, #5-9-22/36, Adarsh Nagar, Hyderabad – 500 063. Telangana. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(1), Signature Towers, Sy.No.6(P) of Kondapur, Sy.No.37(P) of Kothaguda, Opp. Botanical Gardens, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy, Hyderabad – 500 084. 3. The Pr. CIT, Hyderabad. 4. The DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Hyderabad. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER //True copy// Printed from counselvise.com "