MONEEFLO TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HARYANA vs. CIT/ITO/WARD 2(4) GURGAON, RANGE 53, HARYANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4844/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 September 2025AY 2024-25Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)3 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the delay in furnishing Form 10CCB was a procedural lapse and did not dis-entitle the assessee from claiming the deduction. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal stated that substantial justice must prevail over technicalities.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal arose from the denial of deduction under Section 80-IAC due to a delay in furnishing Form 10CCB. Both lower authorities attributed the delay in filing/uploading the tax audit report within the prescribed 'due' date for rejecting the deduction claim.

What were the issues?

Whether a procedural delay in filing Form 10CCB disentitles the assessee from claiming deduction under Section 80-IAC, despite substantive compliance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 80-IAC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Appellant: Shri Shitij Gupta, CA
For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 22.09.2025Pronounced: 22.09.2025

O R D E R

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM:

1.

This assessee’s appeal 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.

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.”

3.

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 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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →