MONEEFLO TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HARYANA vs. CIT/ITO/WARD 2(4) GURGAON, RANGE 53, HARYANA
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARAAssessment Year: 2024-25
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM:
This assessee’s appeal ITA no. 4844/Del/2025 for assessment year
2024-25 arises against CIT(A)-1, Coimbatore’s order dated 13.06.2025 (DIN &
Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1076999631(1), in proceedings u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’.
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
2. This asessee’s appeal raises the following substantive grounds:
“1. That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal without appreciating that the delay in furnishing Form 10CCB is a procedural lapse which does not dis-entitle the assessee from claiming the deduction under section 80-IAC. Therefore, denial of deduction under section 80-1AC was unjust.
2
Moneeflo Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
That the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the audit report in Form 10CCB was duly obtained and uploaded before completion of assessment proceedings under section 143(1), fulfilling the substantial condition required under section 80-IAC. 3. That the learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the judicial precedents which hold that audit reports filed during assessment proceedings should be accepted, and procedural lapses can be condoned. The substantial justice must prevail over technicalities, as per Apex Court rulings and authoritative tribunal decisions. 4. That delay in uploading Form 10CCB was procedural. The Form 10CCB was furnished before processing under section 143(1), fulfilling the substantive compliance. 5. That the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the legislative intent behind section 80-1AC, which aims to promote innovation and entrepreneurship and is an incentive-based provision. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground at the time of hearing.”
Suffice to say, it emerges during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have attributed the assessee’s delay in filing/uploading tax audit report in form 10CCB within prescribed “due” date for rejecting its deduction claim u/s 80-IAC of the Act. 4. That being the case, the Revenue vehemently argues that the above compliance of filing/ uploading of the assessee’s tax audit report is mandatory in 3 Moneeflo Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
nature; and, therefore, the impugned section 80-IAC deduction disallowance of Rs.
23,01,986/- be upheld. It could hardly dispute that in light of case law (2012) 18
taxmann.com 25 (Mad.) CIT v. AKS Alloys (P) Ltd. & (2017) 81 taxmann. Com
189 (All.) CIT v. Fortuna Foundation Engineers & Consultants (P) Ltd., the issue stands already settled in the assessee’s favour and against the department that the above compliance of filing/ uploading of tax prescribed audit report is directory provision. I accordingly draw strong support therefrom to reverse both the learned lower authorities’ action disallowing the assessee’s section 80IAC deduction claim ion the return.
Learned assessing authority is directed to compute the consequential computation in the assessee’s case.
5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed.
Order pronounced in open court on 22.09.2025. (SATBEER SINGH GODARA)
JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 30.09.2025. *MP*