AMAR SINGH PANWAR,BEAWAR,BEAWAR vs. ITO,WD-1, BEAWER, BEAWER

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “SMC” BENCH, JAIPUR BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1285/JPR/2025 (Assessment Year:2024-25)

Amar Singh Panwar Vs. ITO 6-Shri Kripa, Marothiya Ward 1 Colony, Masuda Road Beawar Beawar- 305901 �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No:ADQPP 8692 J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Devang Gargieya, Adv. Respondent by : Sh. Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT Date of Hearing 02.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 30.06.2026 O R D E R The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, Addl./JCIT(A)-5, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”) under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) dated 28-07-25. 2. The assessee in this appeal has taken following grounds of appeal:-

P a g e | 2 ITA No.1285/JPR/2025 Amar Singh Panwar, Beawar 1. The impugned additions and disallowances made in the order u/s 143(1) dated 05.05.2025 are bad in law and on facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction and various other reasons and hence the same kindly be deleted. 2. The ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the disallowance of deduction of ₹16,76,625/- claimed u/s 80JJAA of the Act, made by the ld. AO on the sole ground that Form 10DA was not filed along with the return of income, without appreciating that the certificate was duly obtained from a Chartered Accountant on 24.08.2024, well before the due date of filing the return u/s 139(1). The disallowance so made and confirmed being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts on the record, kindly be deleted in full. 3. The ld. AO erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234C of the Act. The appellant totally denies it liability of charging of any such interest. The interest, so charged, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be deleted in full. 4. The appellant prays your honour to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing. 5. The impugned additions and disallowances made in the order u/s 143(1) dated 05.05.2025 are bad in law and on facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction and various other reasons and hence the same kindly be deleted. 3. The solitary issue in the present appeal relates to denial of claim of deduction of Rs.16,76,625/- u/s 80JJAA of the Act on account of the delay in filing Form 10DA for claiming the said deduction. 4. The facts on record reveal that the delay in filing Form 10DA was only one day. The assessee was required to upload Form 10DA along with the return of income upto 15.11.2024, however, the same was uploaded on 16.11.2024. The denial of deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act, was made in the intimation order passed u/s 143(1) of the Act, which was passed on 05.05.2025. Thus, Form 10DA was filed and was on record, when the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act, was made on the assessee. 5. The assessee pleaded before the Ld. CIT(A) that this issue of denial of grant of deduction on account of delay in filing the requisite

P a g e | 3 ITA No.1285/JPR/2025 Amar Singh Panwar, Beawar form has been dealt with by the Coordinate Benches of the ITAT in number of cases holding the requirement of filing form to be procedural, and that as long as, same was available during assessment proceedings for verification by the AO, there was no reason for denying claim of deduction to the assessee. That however, the Ld. CIT(A), referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax III Bangalore and Another Vs. M/s Wipro Limited in Civil Appeal No.1449 of 2022 dated 11.07.2022, had dismissed the contention of the assessee pointing out that, the Hon’ble Apex Court had applied “strict” construction and held that the requirement of filing a declaration within a timeline is “mandatory” in nature, and noted therefore, to be “strictly” and “literally” complied with. 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the Coordinate Benches of the ITAT in various cases, had dealt with an identical issue and had distinguished the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Wipro Limited (Supra), and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. My attention was drawn to the decision of ITAT Jaipur in the case of Raniwala Jewelers Private Limited Vs. Asstt./Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax in ITA No.10/JPR/2025 dated 06.05.2025, wherein it was pointed out that the identical issue of denial grant of deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act for delay in filing the form 10DA was dealt with by the ITAT and the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Wipro Ltd. (Supra) was referred to by the Revenue, which was duly held by the ITAT to be not applicable in the

P a g e | 4 ITA No.1285/JPR/2025 Amar Singh Panwar, Beawar facts of the case, and that the ITAT had further held that the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of [2016] 71 taxmann.com 35 (SC) CIT, Maharashtra Vs. G.M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd. would apply, wherein it was held that if the requisite forms were filed during assessment proceedings, and before the assessment was made, it would tantamount to sufficient compliance. My attention was drawn to page 4 of the order wherein the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Wipro Limited (Supra) was distinguished by the ITAT, as not applicable in the facts of the case holding that the judgment dealt with the issue of exemption claimed by the assessee, while u/s 80JJAA, the assessee’s claim was deduction from income of the assessee. That therefore the Hon’ble apex court in Wipro(supra) noted exemption provisions to be “strictly” interpreted and the said decision was not applicable to facts where deduction had been claimed by the assessee. 7. Thereafter, my attention was drawn to the decision of the ITAT Kolkatavide in the case of [2024] 168 taxmann.com 514 Tarasafe International Private Limited C/o Dutta Properties Vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax, wherein again the identical issue of deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act was dealt with, which was denied for the delay in filing of form 10DA, and the ITAT, it was pointed out, had distinguished, and held the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Wipro Limited (Supra) to be not applicable for the same reason, that the said decision was rendered in the context of exemption provisions, while the claim in the facts of the case relating to deduction provisions which was covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex

P a g e | 5 ITA No.1285/JPR/2025 Amar Singh Panwar, Beawar Court in the case of G.M. Knitting Industries (Supra)in favour of the assessee. 8. The Ld. DR before me, was unable to controvert the contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee before me, that various decisions of ITAT had distinguished the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Wipro Limited (Supra), and held the same to be not applicable, on the issue of denial of grant of deduction more particularly u/s 80JJAA of the Act on account of delay of filing in requisite forms. 9. In the light of the above, since it is amply clear and duly demonstrated that, the issue for consideration before me, that is denial of grant of deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act on account of delay in filing form 10DA stands squarely covered in the favour of the assessee by various decisions of the Coordinate Benches of the ITAT, I have no hesitation in holding that the assessee in facts of the present case, having filed the requisite form 10DA, well before the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act was made on the assessee, the denial so made was not as per the proposition of law interpreted by Courts in this regard. The order of Ld. CIT(A), denying the grant of deduction relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Wipro Limited (Supra), I find does not stand to the test of judicial scrutiny, since the various decisions of the ITAT ,as pointed outby the ld. Counsel for the assessee before me, have held the said decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court to be not applicable on deduction provisions, as is the facts of the present case.

P a g e | 6 ITA No.1285/JPR/2025 Amar Singh Panwar, Beawar 10. In the light of the above, I direct the assessee to be granted deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act amounting to Rs.16,76,625/-. 11. In effect, the appeal of the assessee is therefore, allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.06.2026.

Sd/- (Annapurna Gupta) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 30.06.2026 Mittali, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT By Order, Asst. Registrar ITAT, Jaipur