Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed its return of income along with an audit report in Form 10DA, which was due on 30/09/2023, but filed on 11/10/2023, an 11-day delay. The CPC processed the return and disallowed the deduction claimed under Section 80JJAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to the delayed filing of Form 10DA. The assessee's rectification application was also rejected.
Held
The Tribunal held that the delay of 11 days in filing the audit report in Form 10DA, which was filed before the processing of the return under Section 143(1), should not be a ground for denial of deduction under Section 80JJAA. The Tribunal followed various judicial precedents and set aside the impugned order.
Key Issues
Whether the disallowance of deduction under Section 80JJAA due to an 11-day delay in filing Form 10DA is justified when the report was filed before the return processing and other conditions for the deduction were met.
Sections Cited
80JJAA, 1961, 143(1), 154, 119(2)(b), 139(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ SM-A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-Shri Manjunatha, G.
Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice President
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 23/12/2024 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC Addl/JCIT(A)-3 Mumbai, for the A.Y.2023-24.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
3. The solitary issue arises in the appeal of the assessee is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) is justified in confirming the disallowance of claim of deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act due to delay of 11 days in filing the audit report in Form-10DA, but the same was filed much before the CPC processed the return u/s 143(1) of the Act. The learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee filed the return of income on 11/10/2023 which is within the extended period of due date of filing the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. The assessee also filed the audit report in Form 10DA on Page 2 of 8 11/10/2023. The CPC processing the return of income vide intimation u/s 143(1) dated 27/05/2024 has disallowed the entire claim of deduction/s 80JJAA of the Act purportedly on the ground of delay in filing the audit report in Form-10DA. Thereafter, the assessee filed a rectification application u/s 154 of the Act dated 30th May, 2024 within 3 days from the date of intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act. The CPC has not carried out any rectification and passed the order on 08/07/2024 thereby rejected the rectification application of the assessee. The assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT (A) and relied upon various decisions on the issue that even if the audit report is not filed along with the return of income, but the same was filed during the assessement proceedings and before the final order of the assessment was made, then it would amount to sufficient compliance of the provisions and deduction cannot be disallowed merely on the ground of delay in filing the audit report. Thus, the learned AR has submitted that despite the fact that the assessee has filed the audit report in Form 10DA well before the assessment/processing of the return u/s 143(1) of the Act, then the disallowance of claim u/s 80JJAA of the Act is not justified. The learned CIT (A) has confirmed the disallowance made by the CPC on the ground that the assessee filed Form-10DA on 11/10/.2023 which is delayed by 11 days as the due date of filing the date of report was 30/09/2023. The assessee ought to have sought the condonation of delay in filing the audit report in Form 10DA as per the provisions of section 119(2)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The learned AR has relied upon various decisions in support of her contention as under:
Page 3 of 8 i) ITAT Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Akuntha Projects (P) Ltd vs. Dy. Director, CPC Bengaluru in ITA No.52/Ahd/2024. ii) ITAT Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Sunrise Industries (India) Ltd vs. Dy. CIT in ITA No.282/Ahd/2025. iii) ITAT Bangalore Bench in the case of Shri Bhagawanji Harish vs. Income Tax Officer in ITA No.1315/Bang/2024. iv) ITAT Kolkata Bench in the case of Tarasafe International (P) Ltd vs. Dy. Director of Income Tax, CPC Bengaluru in Ita No.627/Kol/2024. v) ITAT Hyderabad Bench in the case of PPS Motors (P) Ltd vs. Dy.CIT in ITA No.1133/Hyd/2024.
On the other hand, the learned DR has relied upon the impugned order of the learned CIT (A) and submitted that the assessee ought to have applied for condonation of delay in filing the audit report in Form 10DA as per the provisions of section 119(2)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961.
We have considered the rival contentions as well as the relevant material available on record. At the outset, we note that the CPC has processed the return of income u/s 143(1) of the Act vide order dated 27/05/2024 giving the details of filing of the return of income within the due date of filing of return of income. The relevant page of the order of the CPC dated 27/05/2024 is reproduced as under:
6. Thus, the due date of filing of the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act was 31/10/2023 and therefore, the assessee filed the return of income as well as the audit report in Form
Page 5 of 8 10DA within the due date of filing the return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, though the assessee has accepted that there is a delay in filing the audit report in Form-10DA by considering the due date of filing the audit report as 30/09/2023. However, when the report was filed and was available with the CPC before passing the impugned order u/s 143(1), then the delay of 11 days in filing the audit report cannot be a ground for denial of deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act. This issue has been considered by this Tribunal as well as by the Hon'ble High Courts which have been relied upon by the assessee. The Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal vide order dated 3/2/2025 in the case of PPS Motors (P) Ltd vs. Dy.CIT (Supra) has considered this issue in para 4 to 7 as under: “4. She placed reliance on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal rendered in the case of Akuntha Projects (P.) Ltd vs. Deputy Director-CPC reported in (2024) 162 taxmann.com 861 (Ahmedabad - Trib.) on identical facts wherein the coordinate Bench relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Association of Indian Panelboard Manufacturer vs. Dy. CIT (2023) 157 taxmann.com 550 and held that "although the requirement of furnishing report was mandatory, filing thereof is a procedural aspect". A reference was also made to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. G.M. Kni ng Industries (P.) Ltd (2016) 71 taxmann.com 35.
5. For this purpose, she brought it to our notice that in the case of the sister concern, namely, AML Business Solutions Private Limited, the learned CIT(A), dated 05/08/2024 acted upon the Form-10DA uploaded belatedly and held that there was sufficient compliance with law. Inasmuch as the assessee was prevented from uploading Form-10DA due to technical glitches in the Income Tax Department portal.
Though the learned Departmental Representative ("learned DR") vehemently relied upon the orders of the authorities below, the fact remains that as on the date of In Page 6 of 8 ma on U/s.143(1) of the Act, Form- 10DA is available on record.
7. We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Association of Indian Panelboard Manufacturer vs. DCIT (supra) and also the view of the coordinate Bench in the case of Akuntha Projects (P) Ltd vs. Deputy Director- CPC (supra), we are of the considered opinion that Form- 10DA filed belatedly on 17/10/2023 by assessee should have been considered by the authorities for the purpose of deduction U/s. 80JJAA of the Act. We accordingly set- aside the impugned order and restore the issue to the file of the learned Assessing Officer to consider Form-10DA of the Act and take a view according to law. The grounds are answered accordingly.”
A Consistent view has been taken by the other Benches of this Tribunal in the cases as relied upon by the learned AR of the assessee. Accordingly, to maintain the rule of consistency, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of the assessee u/s 80JJAA of the Act by considering the report in Form-10DA filed by the assessee.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.