PPS MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ मɅ
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”, HYDERABAD

BEFORE
SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
&
SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

आ.अपी.सं / ITA No.1133/Hyd/2024
(Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year: 2023-24)

PPS Motors Private
Limited,
Hyderabad.
[PAN : AAFCP8182N]

Vs.
DCIT,
Circle-5(1),
Hyderabad.

अपीलाथȸ / Appellant

Ĥ× यथȸ / Respondent

Ǔनधा[ǐरती ɮवारा/Assessee by:
Ms. Mrudulatha Devdas, AR
राजè व ɮवारा/Revenue by:
Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr. AR

सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख/Date of hearing:
30/01/2025
घोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Pronouncement on:
03/02/2025

आदेश / ORDER
PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M:
Aggrieved by the order dated 30/08/2024 passed by the learned
Addl / Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Vadodara (“learned
CIT(A)”), in the case of PPS Motors Private Limited (“the assessee”), assessee preferred this appeal for the AY 2023-24. Page 2 of 4
2. Brief facts of the case are that on the ground of filing Form-10DA belatedly, claim U/s. 80JJAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) made by the assessee was denied vide InƟmaƟon U/s. 143(1) of the Act, dated
10/05/2024 by the CPC, Bengaluru.
3. At the outset, the learned Authorized RepresentaƟve (“learned
AR”) submiƩed that the return of income was filed within Ɵme and Form-
10DA was filed on 17/10/2023 due to certain technical glitches in the Income Tax Department portal whereas, InƟmaƟon U/s. 143(1) of the Act was passed on 10/05/2024. 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 idenƟcal facts wherein the coordinate Bench relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of AssociaƟon 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. Kniƫng Industries (P.) Ltd (2016) 71 taxmann.com 35. 5. For this purpose, she brought it to our noƟce that in the case of the sister concern, namely, AML Business SoluƟons 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.
6. Though the learned Departmental RepresentaƟve (“learned DR”) vehemently relied upon the orders of the authoriƟes below, the fact remains that as on the date of InƟmaƟon U/s.143(1) of the Act, Form-
10DA is available on record.

Page 3 of 4
7. We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. Respecƞully following the decision of the Hon’ble
Gujarat High Court in the case of AssociaƟon 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 authoriƟes for the purpose of deducƟon 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.
8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for staƟsƟcal purposes as indicated hereinabove.
Order pronounced in the open court on this the 03rd February,
2025. (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA)
JUDICIAL MEMBER
Hyderabad, Dated: 03/02/2025
OKK

Page 4 of 4