RIKKI PLASTIC PRIVATE LIMITED, BALLABGARH, FARIDABAD, HARYANA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1, FBD, FARIDABAD,HARYANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2030/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 July 2026AY 2023-247 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the Form 10DA was available to the CPC at the time of processing the return under Section 143(1), the disallowance of the deduction was not justified. Therefore, the deduction claimed under Section 80JJAA is allowable.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed a deduction under Section 80JJAA of the Income Tax Act. The CPC disallowed this deduction due to a 21-day delay in filing the tax audit report in Form 10DA. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance of deduction under Section 80JJAA is justified solely on the basis of delay in filing Form 10DA when the report was available before processing the return.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80JJAA,Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI

Before: MS. MADHUMITA ROY & SH. KRINWANT SAHAY

Hearing: 02.07.2026Pronounced: 10.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

I.T.A. No.2030/DEL/2026 (A.Y 2023-24) Rikki Plastic Private Limited DCIT Ballabgarh Faridabad Vs. Circle-1 Haryana Faridabad PAN No. AACCR9594J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Sh. Deepanshu Singhla, Advocate Sh. Ankit Garg, Advocate Respondent by : Sh. Mahendra Singh, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing 02.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 10.07.2026

ORDER PER KRINWANT SAHAY AM

Appeal in this case has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 23.01.2026 passed by the Ld. ADDL/JCIT (A)-6, Mumbai for the A.Y. 2023-24. Grounds of appeal are as under :- 1 | P a g e

“1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 23.01.2026 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), dismissing the grounds of appeal and sustaining the assessed income at Rs. 3,08,65,530/- in place of the returned income of Rs. 2,88,36,500/- filed by the assessee, is bad in law on account of several grounds and assessee/appellant denies its liability to be assessed for any income other than the income already returned by the assessee and the consequential demand of Rs.6,83,280/-.

2.

That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as much as in facts, as the Ld. CIT(A) has uphold the action of CPC in disallowing the deduction claimed under section 80JJAA of the Act, without properly appreciating the facts, and submissions placed on record by the appellant.

3.

That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the CPC has erred in law as much as in facts in disallowance of deduction claimed by the appellant u/s 80JJAA of the Act, and the Ld. CIT(A) also erred in sustaining such disallowance.

4.

That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as much as in facts, upon sustaining the disallowance made merely on the basis of delay in filing Form 10DA, without appreciating the fact that it was already available before the CPC at the time of scrutiny u/s 143(1) of the Act. 2 | P a g e

5.

That the appellant craves to leave, add, alter, amend, modify or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal before or during the hearing of appeal.

6.

That each ground is independent and without prejudice to each other.”

2.

At the very outset the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted before the Bench that the CPC Bangalore disallowed the deduction claimed u/s.80JJAA of the Act for the simple reason that the tax audit report was belatedly filed. There was a delay of 21 days in filing of the tax audit report in Form 10DA. The Ld. Counsel further has filed synopsis on this issue which is reproduced as under :-

3 | P a g e

4 | P a g e

5 | P a g e

3.

Per contra the Ld. DR relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

4.

We have considered the findings given by the Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order and the submissions filed by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and his arguments made before us. It is obvious from the submission filed by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the report in Form 10DA was filed on 20.01.2023 and the CPC processed the return on 07.07.2024. Thus it is clear that on the date of the processing of return by the CPC u/s.143(1) of the Act report in Form

6 | P a g e

– 10DA was already available to the CPC on the date. There are various judicial pronouncements given by the co-ordinate Benches of ITAT on this issue which clearly show that once the report in Form 10DA is filed before the processing of return. There is no reason to disallow the deduction claimed by the assessee. Accordingly, here in this case the deduction claimed u/s.80JJA of the Act by the assessee is allowable. Accordingly, assessee’s appeal on this issue is allowed.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in open Court on 10 July, 2026.

.

Sd/- Sd/- (MADHUMITA ROY) (KRINWANT SAHAY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBR Dated : 10/07/2026 *Neha Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to : 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI

7 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 80JJAA

All 275 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80JJAA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →