G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,WEST DELHI, INDIA vs. CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTER , BANGALORE

Learned Authorised Representative for appellant-assessee submitted that the ld.CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of the ld. AO in not allowing deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that filing of Form 10DA is directory which stands fulfilled once Accountant’s Report is furnished and deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act cannot be denied solely for belated filing of the prescribed form. The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that Form 10DA was filed on 30th December, 2023 which was prior to intimation drawn u/s 143(1) of the Act on 27.03.2024. Therefore, while processing the return of income u/s 143(1) of the Act, the relevant form was available with the CPC to enable grant of deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act.

Reliance was placed on the decisions of: the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in International Tractors Ltd. vs. DCIT (2021) 435 ITR 85 (Del) dated 7th April, 2021; Canadian Speciality Vinyls vs. ITO, (Delhi ITAT), dated 02.06.2023; and also on the following decisions:-

- CIT vs. GM Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd. [2016] 71 taxmann.com 35 (Hon’ble Supreme Court); - Association of Indian Panelboard Manufacturer vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [2023] 157 Taxmann.com 550 (Gujarat); - CIT vs. Panama Chemical Works [2007] 165 Taxman 135 (MP); - Kumaon Exports Pvt. Ltd., v. DCIT (ITA No. 39/Del/2024) (Delhi ITAT); - Aprameya Engineering Ltd. vs. ITO [2024] 164 taxmann.com 740 (Ahmedabad-Trib.); - Jeans Knit (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2022] 138 taxmann.com 480 (Bangalore- Trib.) - Krushi Vibhag Karmchari Vrund Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit vs. Income-tax Officer [2023] 147 taxmann.com 449 (Nagpur-Trib.); & - Captain Steel India Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 166 taxmann.com 351 (Kolkata-Trib.)

No.2 by relying the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in PCIT vs. Wipro Ltd. (Civil appeal No.1449 of 2022) and in CC vs. Dilip Kumar & Company (2018) 95 taxmann.com 327. titled as Captain Steel India Ltd. vs. DCIT (2024) 166 taxmann.com 351 (Kolkata Trib.), order dated 1st February, 2023, the ITAT Kolkata Bench has held as under:-

8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record and given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made before us. We note that it is a case where a return has been processed u/s. 143(1) vide issuance of intimation. Subsequently at the first appellate stage, assessee has claimed a deduction u/s. 80JJAA of the Act by raising an additional ground which the Ld. CIT(A) has not admitted. We note that Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetz (India) P. Ltd. (supra) has held that even if a claim is not made before the AO, it can be made before the appellate authority and in the said judgment, the jurisdiction of appellate authority to entertain such a claim has not been negatived. 8.1. We note that assessee did not have the opportunity to raise the contention before the Ld. AO as its return was processed by CPC, Bangalore and intimation was issued u/s. 143(1) and, therefore, the assessee had no opportunity to make a fresh claim by way of filing a revised return before the CPC, Bangalore since the process is Captain Steel India Ltd., AY 2019-20 completed. The claim made by the assessee at the first appellate stage is an allowable claim in view of the judgments of Hon'ble High Courts of Karnataka and Delhi referred in above paragraphs which have dealt with the identical fact pattern, in favour of the assessee. 8.2. We further note that the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Wipro Ltd. (supra) has observed a distinction between the claim made under Chapter-III and that made under Chapter-VIA and, therefore, is not applicable in the present case as it is a claim made u/s. 80JJAA of the Act falling under Chapter VIA of the Act. 8.3. We also note that assessee has been claiming a deduction for the preceding as well as subsequent assessment year i.e. AYs 2018-19 and 2020-21 which has been allowed by the Ld. CIT(A) at the appellate stage. The facts relevant to the claim of deduction made by the assessee were placed before the Ld. CIT(A). Also, the submissions made before the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of the claim of deduction made by the assessee are placed on record in the paper book.

9. Considering the facts on record and the judicial precedence as referred above, we have no hesitation in allowing the admission of additional ground raised

by the assessee in respect of claim of deduction u/s. 80JJAA of the Act which has been raised at the first appellate stage. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee in this respect are allowed.

10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.” titled as Akuntha Projects (P) Ltd. vs. Dy. Director, CPC, (2024) 162 taxmann.com 861 (Ahmedbad - Trib.), order dated 20th May, 2024, the ITAT Ahmedabad Bench has held as under:- “9. Accordingly, looking into the instant facts, and the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and jurisdictional Gujarat High Court referred to above, we are of the considered view that the claim of the assessee/appellant for deduction under Section 80JJA of the Act cannot be denied for the reason that firstly, the chartered accountant of the assessee had uploaded Form 10DDA before the due date of filing of return of income, and it was only because of procedural lapse/mistake on the part of the appellant/assessee that the aforesaid form could not be accepted before the due date of filing of return of income, secondly, the assessee/appellant had duly accepted the Form 10DDA before the return of income was processed by the CPC on 16.03.2023, thirdly, the Gujarat High Court, has on similar facts observed that although the furnishing of report for claiming the deduction/exemption is mandatory requirement, the mode and stage of filing thereof is a procedural aspect and if the requisite audit report is available with the assessing officer before the assessment order is framed, then the claim of deduction cannot be denied to the assessee/appellant, even if the audit report may not have been filed along with the return of income.