AKSHAR ELECINFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1 (1) (1), VADODARA, VADODARA

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 15.02.2022 declaring total income of Rs.2,95,65,700/- and claimed deduction of Rs.7,02,975/- u/s 80JJAA of the Act. The Akshar Elecinfra Pvt Ltd. Vs. DCIT Asst. Year : 2021-22 - 2– deduction claimed was in continuation of deductions allowed in A.Ys. 2019-20 and 2020-21, amounting to Rs.4,26,727/- and Rs.2,76,248/- respectively, relating to additional employment cost incurred in those years. The assessee had duly filed Form 10DA for A.Y. 2019-20 and A.Y. 2020-21, as required under section 80JJAA(2)(c), in support of its claim. In A.Y. 2021-22, no new employment was made, and the claim represented the second and third years of deduction for employees hired in earlier years. The assessee attempted to file Form 10DA electronically for the year under consideration, but the system did not allow filing as no new claim was made for that year. The CPC, while processing the return u/s 143(1), disallowed the deduction of Rs.7,02,975/- solely on the ground that Form 10DA was not filed along with the return of income for the current assessment year. The disallowance was later upheld by the Ld. CIT(A).

The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 80JJAA for AY 2021-22 pertains to ‘additional employee cost’ incurred in AYs 2019-20 and 2020-21. The Ld. AR submitted that no new claim was made for AY 2021-22. The Ld. AR also submitted that Form 10DA was duly filed for the initial years, and the claim is also supported by the Tax Audit Report; however, due to technical issues on the portal, Asst. Year : 2021-22 - 3– 6. Aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. It is an undisputed fact that the deduction u/s 80JJAA was claimed in continuation of the deduction allowed in the earlier two years, for which Form 10DA was duly filed. The Assessing Officer has disallowed the deduction for the year under consideration only on the ground that Form 10DA was not filed with the return of income for the relevant year. The CIT(A) has upheld the disallowance, relying on section 80JJAA(2)(c) of the Act. We find that the disallowance for the current year is purely technical in nature, based on the alleged non-filing of Form 10DA, despite the fact that no new employees were hired during the year, the deduction claimed pertains to earlier years and the income-tax e-filing portal did not permit uploading Form 10DA in absence of new employment, which is a technical barrier beyond the control of the assessee. In view of the above, and in the interest of justice, we are of the considered opinion that the matter needs to be restored to the file of the Juri ictional Assessing Officer for the verification of the claim and allow.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2.  थ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधतआयकरआयु / Concerned CIT 4. आयकरआयु(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीयितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, अहमदाबाद/ DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड फाईल/ Guard file.