KARMA ECOTECH PVT. LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRLE 13(1), NEW DLHI, NEW DELHI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, E: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, HON’BLE & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, HON’BLE
PER RENU JAUHRI:
This appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner
Income Tax (Appeal) [Addl./JCIT (A)-1], Bengaluru (for short, Ld. CIT(A)) dated
30.09.2025
for A.Y.
2024-25
in Appeal
No.
Addl/JCIT
(A)-1
Bengaluru/10041/2023-24. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
ITA No. 7431_DEL_2025_Karma Ecotech Pvt Ltd.
“1. That the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act by CPC, Bangaloreand confirmed by the CIT(A)-NFAC is not only bad in law but also against the facts of the case.
That the Ld. CIT(A) is erred under the law while disposing off appeal filed by the appellant with the observation that, juri iction for condonation of delay in filing form 10CCB lies with CIT(A) exemption u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act.
That the CIT(A)-NFAC is erred under the law and fact while not condoning the delay of only 18 days in filing the Form 10CCB as the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause in not filing the Form on or before time.
That all the grounds of appeal raise herein above are independent ground and without prejudice to each others.
The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, modify or delete any of the above grounds as well as to submit additional grounds on or before at the time of hearing of the appeal.”
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return for A.Y. 2024-25 on 28.10.2024 claiming deduction u/s 80IAC of the Act. Prescribed Form 10CCB for claiming the deduction was filed on 25.10.2024, i.e., beyond the prescribed due date for filing of audit report which was 07.10.2024(as extended), but before filing of return, the CPC denied the assessee’s claim of deduction while processing u/s 143(1) on account of belated filing of the Form 10CCB. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). However, vide order dated 10.11.2025, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed with the following observations:
“ 4.3.2
The contention of the Appellant is considered as it is observed that the Appellant has filed the Form 10CCB electronically on 25.10.2024. For a company to claim relief u/s 80IC, it is mandatory to file Form 10CCB as per rule 18BBB of the IT Rules, 1962. ITA No. 7431_DEL_2025_Karma Ecotech Pvt Ltd.
3.3 It is the duty of the appellant to follow the rule and procedure that is prescribed in the Income Tax Act and Income Tax Rules. The appellant has requested the appellate authority to condone the filing of belatedly Form 10CCB. However, the condonation u/s 119(2)(b) is to be condoned only by CIT(Exemption).
Thus, the appellant shall file the application of condonation before the concerned CIT(Exemption) for condonation of delay u/s 119(2) of the Act.”
Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal.
Before us, Ld. AR has submitted that there was a delay of only 18 days in filing of the Form which was filed before the due date for filing of return but beyond the prescribed due date. He has further submitted that the requirement of filing Form 10CCB is only a procedural requirement and not mandatory. Ld. AR has placed reliance on several judicial pronouncements in support of the argument that the deduction which is overtime allowable cannot be disallowed merely for the reason that the prescribed form was filed beyond the due date. Ld. AR has also argued that the impugned disallowance u/s 143(1) was beyond the scope of adjustments permissible u/s 143(1).
1 On the other hand, Ld. DR has submitted that due to mandatory requirement of furnishing the prescribed form 10CCB by the due date of filing of audit report, the disallowance was rightly made by the CPC. Subsequently, the Ld. DR has placed on record several decisions of the Hon’ble co-ordinate Benches whereby it has been held that even in case of belated filing of Form 10CCB but before completion of assessment, the assessee is eligible to claim deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. In particular reliance has been placed on the decision in Bhagwan Precision vs. ACTI
ITA No. 7431_DEL_2025_Karma Ecotech Pvt Ltd.
Rohtak 2025(8) TMI 1042-ITAT Delhi whereby the Hon’ble co-ordinate Bench have held as under:
“7. With regard to delay in submission of audit report, we observe that several courts have held that the assessee to file the audit report along with return were only directory in nature and not mandatory. We observe that Hon'ble
Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs.. Contimeters Electricals Pvt. Ltd.
(supra) have held as under:
"After issuance of the notice the Commissioner of Income Tax passed the order dated 29.03.2007 whereby he held that that he was fully satisfied that the assessment which had been completed by the Assessing Officer was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and that it was erroneous in as much as the assessee had not satisfied the conditions laid down under Section 80-1A and consequently the deduction under that section for the sum of Rs 14,27,351/- had been wrongly allowed. The CIT(A), therefore, cancelled the assessment which had been earlier framed and directed the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment as per law, in terms of the directions given in the said order. Being aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal which was allowed by the Tribunal by virtue of the impugned order. The Tribunal took the view that the provisions of section 80-IA(7) with regard to filing of the audit report along with the return were not mandatory and were merely directory.
In coming to such conclusion, the Tribunal referred to the decision of the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries. 201
ITR 325 (Guj). In that decision the provisions of Section 80J(6A) were considered. The wording of Section 80J(6A) is similar to that of section 80-IA(7) which is in issue in the present appeal. The Gujarat High
ITA No. 7431_DEL_2025_Karma Ecotech Pvt Ltd.
Court took the view that the word "shall" which occurs in section 80.J(6A) be read as "may" and that the requirement "of filing of an audit report along with the return was only to be taken as directory in nature.
The Gujarat High Court took the view that in case the audit report is submitted at any time before the framing of the assessment, there would be substantial compliance with the provisions of Section 80.J(6A).
The Tribunal also relied on the decision of the Madras High Court in CIT v. A.N. Arunachalam, 208 ITR 481 (Mad), which, again, while considering the provisions of Section 80J(6A), took the same view as that of the Gujarat High Court.
We notice that there are other decisions of other Courts taking the same view. The decisions being. CIT v. Shivanand Electricals (1994) 209 ITR
63 (Bombay): Zenith Processing Mills v. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 721
(Guj.); CIT v. Jayant Patel (2001) 248 ITR 199 (Mad) and CIT v.
Mahalaxmi Rice Factory (2007) 294 ITR 631 (P&H).
In view of this long line on decisions of various High Courts in considering the provisions of Section 80J(6A) which are similar to the provisions of Section 80-IA(7), we feel that the Tribunal has arrived at the correct conclusion that the requirement of filing the audit report along with the return is not mandatory but directory and that if the audit report is filed at any time before the framing of the assessment, the requirement of section 80-IA(7) would be met."
ITA No. 7431_DEL_2025_Karma Ecotech Pvt Ltd.
Respectfully following the above decision and other similar decisions, we are inclined to hold that the assessee is eligible to claim deduction u/s 80IC who had claimed the deductions u/s 80IC in filing return of income u/s 139(1) and 139(5) and duly submitted the audit report before completion of the assessment. Therefore, we are inclined to allow the grounds raised by the assessee.”
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We note that the Ld. CIT(A) while dismissing the appeal has given directions to the assessee to file application for condonation of delay before the CIT(Exemption), which are clearly erroneous as juri iction over the case does not lie with the Exemption Charges. Under these circumstances, we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A). Further, on merits, after considering the judicial pronouncements on the issue of belated filing of Form 10CCB, respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in the case of Bhagwan Precision (supra), we hold that the merely on account of belated filing of the claim of deduction u/s 80IC cannot be denied as the same was available before the completion of assessment. Accordingly, we restore the matter to Ld. AO for limited purpose of verification of claim under the provisions of section 80IC of the Act.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 18.03.2026. [RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN] [RENU JAUHRI]
JUDICIAL MEMBER
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated-18 .03.2026. Pooja Mittal, Sr. PS.
ITA No. 7431_DEL_2025_Karma Ecotech Pvt Ltd.
7