Boggaram Krishnamurthy Ramakrishna Vs DCIT (ITAT, Bangalore Bench)
Solar Panels on One Roof, Deduction Claimed in Another Name: Approval Mismatch Sinks ₹9.67-Lakh Claim u/s 80-IA—Bangalore ITAT
Summary: The Bangalore ITAT denied deduction of ₹9,67,138 u/s 80-IA claimed by an individual through his proprietary concern, M/s Azure Energy, in respect of a solar rooftop power plant. The statutory approvals, power-purchase agreement & completion certificate were all issued in the name of another entity, M/s Viswas Textile Processors. The Tribunal held that filing Form 10CCB alone was insufficient when it was not accompanied by the requisite approval, agreement or permission in the name of the undertaking claiming the deduction.
Delay of 177 Days Condoned
The assessee’s appeal before the Tribunal was delayed by 177 days. He explained that the CIT(A)’s order was neither received by post nor delivered through email. He came to know about the order only when the Demand Management Centre, CPC, Mysuru, telephoned him regarding payment of the outstanding demand.
The assessee contended that the delay was unintentional & occurred due to circumstances beyond his control.
Relying upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji, the Tribunal reiterated that procedural rules are the handmaids of justice. Where substantial justice conflicts with a technical consideration, the former should ordinarily prevail. Since the assessee did not benefit by filing the appeal late & had supported his explanation with an affidavit, the delay was condoned.
