RAC IT SOLUTIONS PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 11(1)(1), MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1195/MUM/2026 (AY: 2023-24)

RAC IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO Ward 11(1)(1) 408/409, Parle Square Monghibai Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Road, Vileparle East, Mumbai-400 400 020. 057. PAN/GIR No: AADCR9546E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Ketan Vajani Revenue by Shri Umashankar Prasad Date of Hearing 30.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement 08.07.2026 O R D E R PER BIJYANANDA PRUSETH, AM:

This appeal filed by the assessee emanates from the order passed under

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act’) by the Commissioner of

Income-tax, Appeal-ADDL/JCIT-3, Kolkata [in short, ‘CIT(A)’], dated 15.12.2025

for the assessment year (AY) 2023-24.

1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Jt. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), hereinafter referred to as the Jt. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the intimation passed by the Centralised Processing Centre CPC, wherein the CPC had erred made in making impermissible adjustments to the total income of the appellant while processing the Return of Income.

1.2 Your appellant respectfully submits that denial of deduction u/s. 80JJAA on account of delay in filing Form No. 10DA cannot be considered as "an incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return" and accordingly intimation passed by the CPC is in violation of the provisions of section 143(1) of the Act. As such, the impugned adjustment of Rs. 44,73,694/- is not permissible and the same deserves to be deleted.

1.3 The appellant, therefore, prays that the adjustment made by the CPC and confirmed by the Jt. CIT (A) may please be deleted and the income of the appellant may please be assessed at Rs. 31,38,00,370/- as per the Return of Income filed by the appellant.

2.1 Without any prejudice to the Grounds above, the Jt. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the intimation wherein the CPC has not allowed the deduction of Rs. 44,73,694/- u/s. 80JJAA of the Act merely on account of delay in filing the Form No. 10DA for the above assessment.

2.2 Your appellant respectfully submits that in view of the substantial compliance made by the appellant, the procedural defect, if any, cannot lead to denial of deduction. The appellant submits that there is no dispute about the eligibility to claim the deduction or the quantification thereof and accordingly the action of the CPC is not justified for any reason.

2.3 Your appellant, therefore, prays that the deduction of Rs. 44,73,694/- may please be allowed in the case of the appellant or any other relief as deemed fit may please be allowed to the appellant.” 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee electronically filed return

of income for the AY 2023-24 on 26.10.2023 declaring total income of

Rs.31,38,00,370/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 30.04.2024

after making disallowance of deduction u/s 80JJAA of Rs.44,73,694/-.

The CIT(A) has condoned the delay in filing appeal before him. He has extracted

the statement of facts, grounds of appeal, submission of appellant and decided

the issued against the assessee by observing as under:

“From a plain reading of the above, it is clear that in the instant case the due date for filing Form 10DA is one month before the due date of return filing under Section 139(1) for the relevant assessment year. It is also not in dispute that assessee has filed the form 10DA belatedly. Considering this belated filing of Form 10DA, CPC has rightly exercised the power as per provisions of section 143(1)(a) (ii) of the Act. Hence ground no 1 is dismissed. Further as assessee failed to file form 10DA timely, claim u/s 80JJA is not sustainable. This is as per provisions of Act. In such a situation of delay in filing form 10DA, assessee should have taken recourse of provisions of section 119 of the Act. This section empowers jurisdictional PCIT to condone such delays in filing form by assessee. Moreover, the JCIT(Appeals) is explicitly not empowered to exercise any such power as per provisions of section 119. Exercising any such power by undersigned will be encroachment upon powers bestowed upon superior authorities. This will also render provisions of section 119 infructuous. Hence ground no 2 is also dismissed.”

Tribunal. The grounds are related and hence, taken up together for decision. The

Ld. AR has filed a paper book giving various details regarding the ROI, computation

of income, audited accounts, TAR, Form 10DA etc. and has relied on the decision

of the Delhi Tribunal in case of Jubilant Food Works Ltd. vs. ACIT (177

taxmann.com 374) and submitted that under similar facts, where assessee

claimed deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act, however, it filed Form 10DA along with

revised return, since the report of the accountant in Form 10DA was available

before the AO at the time of processing revised return, the assessee would be

entitled to claim deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act. He, therefore, requested to

allow the appeal filed by the assessee.

He submitted that the Form 10DA should have been filed one month before the

due date of filing the return, which was admittedly filed belatedly. Hence, the

claim has been rightly disallowed by the CPC and confirmed by the CIT(A).

There is no dispute that Form 10DA was not filed one month before the due date

of filing return u/s 139(1) of the Act. This is a statutory requirement as per section

80JJAA(2)(c) of the Act. The Ld. AR has relied on the decision of the ITAT Delhi in

case of Jubilant Food Works Ltd. (supra). However, we find that the jurisdictional

Mumbai ITAT has recently examined the issue in the case of 360 One Distribution

Services Ltd. v. DCIT (2026) 183 taxmann.com 634 (Mumbai- Trib.) and decided

the issue in favour of the revenue. The said decision was followed by the Mumbai

Tribunal in case of Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. in ITA No.5544

& 6119/Mum/2025 dated 27.05.2026 and the ground was decided in favour of

the revenue. The relevant part of the decision in 360 One Distribution Services

Ltd. (supra) is as under:

“9. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. In the present case, it is undisputed that the assessee, for the first time, claimed a deduction u/s 80-JJAA of the Act before the learned CIT(A) in respect of additional employee costs. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the ground raised by the assessee on this issue, by observing as follows: - "4.4 Ground No. 4- Deduction of Rs.3,06,30,724/- u/s 80JJAA of the Act.

4.4.1 This ground relates to the assessee's claim for deduction of Rs.3,06,30,724/- u/s 80JJAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee has submitted that an amount of Rs.10,21,02,413/- was incurred as additional employee cost in respect of 757 new regular workmen employed during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. Accordingly, a deduction of Rs.3,06,30,724/- u/s 80JJAA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, being 30% of the additional employee cost, has been claimed. In support of this, the assessee has furnished a report in Form 10DA dated 30.10.2019, certified by a Chartered Accountant. However, on verification of records, it is observed that the assessee did not claim this deduction in the original return of income filed on 31.10.2018, nor was the claim raised during the course of assessment proceedings. Further, the Form 10DA-being a mandatory requirement for claiming deduction u/s 80JJAA—was not filed within the prescribed due date under the Act and applicable Rules. This constitutes a violation of the statutory conditions for availing the deduction. 4.4.2 In view of the above, and considering the non-fulfilment of the mandatory procedural requirements, the assessee's claim for deduction u/s 80JJAA cannot be entertained at this stage. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is dismissed, and the appeal is not allowed." 10. Thus, the learned CIT(A) denied the claim of deduction u/s 80-JJAA of the Act, on the following basis: - (a) The assessee did not claim this deduction in its original return of income filed on 31.10.2018; (b) The claim was not raised during the course of assessment proceedings; and (c) Non-fulfilment of the mandatory procedural requirements for claiming deduction u/s 80-JJAA of the Act. 11. From the perusal of the impugned order, we find that in support of its claim made u/s 80-JJAA of the Act before the learned CIT(A), the assessee furnished the report in Form 10DA dated 30.10.2019, certified by a Chartered Accountant. As per the learned CIT(A), inter alia, the said report was not filed before the prescribed due date under the Act and applicable Rules. During the hearing, the learned AR submitted that, since the claim could not be made at the time of filing the return, the report in Form 10DA could also not be filed within time.

7.1 Facts of the instant appeal are similar and, hence, following the above

decisions of the co-ordinate Bench, the claim for deduction u/s 80JJAA is rejected.

The assessee has not filed Form 10DA one month before the due date of filing

return u/s 139(1) of the Act. Hence, we do not find any reason to differ from the findings of the CIT(A). In view of the clear provisions of the Act and the decisions

of the co-ordinate Bench cited supra, the grounds are dismissed.

Order is pronounced on 08.07.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (BIJYANANDA PRUSETH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

*Aniket Chand; Sr. PS MUMBAI Date: 08.07.2026 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. Guard File

By Order

Assistant Registrar ITAT, MUMBAI