DCIT Vs Bharat Diamond Bourse (ITAT Mumbai)
Revised Form 10B Filed Within Time Granted by CPC Cannot Be Ignored: Mumbai ITAT Protects ₹25.56 Crore Section 11 Claim
The assessee, a Section 8 company registered under Section 12A, claimed 15% accumulation of income amounting to ₹25.56 crore under Section 11(1)(a) in its original return. However, the auditor inadvertently omitted the amount in the original Form 10B, leading the CPC to deny the claim while processing the return under Section 143(1).
The CPC had issued a communication dated 20 December 2024 pointing out the mismatch and granted the assessee 30 days to respond. The assessee furnished a revised Form 10B containing the correct particulars within that period. Nevertheless, the CPC processed the return before considering the response and assessed ₹25.56 crore as income.
The Mumbai ITAT held that this was not merely a case of belated filing requiring condonation. Once the CPC itself granted an opportunity to rectify or explain the discrepancy, the revised Form 10B submitted within that time was required to be considered.
The Tribunal distinguished the Supreme Court’s decision in PCIT v. Wipro Ltd., observing that the assessee here had acted within the specific opportunity granted during processing. Consequently, the question of the CIT(A)’s jurisdiction to condone delay did not arise.
