Case Law Details
Amar Singh Panwar Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur)
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jaipur, allowed the assessee’s appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which had upheld the disallowance of a deduction of ₹16,76,625 under Section 80JJAA of the Income Tax Act.
The assessee challenged the disallowance made in the intimation issued under Section 143(1), contending that the deduction was wrongly denied solely because Form 10DA was not filed along with the return of income. The assessee also challenged the levy of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C. However, the principal issue before the Tribunal was the denial of the deduction under Section 80JJAA due to the delayed filing of Form 10DA.
The Tribunal noted that the delay in filing Form 10DA was only one day. While the form was required to be uploaded by 15.11.2024 along with the return of income, it was actually uploaded on 16.11.2024. The intimation under Section 143(1), by which the deduction was denied, was issued later on 05.05.2025. Therefore, Form 10DA had already been filed and was available on record before the intimation under Section 143(1) was issued.
Before the Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee argued that several Coordinate Benches of the ITAT had consistently held that the requirement of filing the prescribed form was procedural in nature. According to those decisions, where the prescribed form was available during assessment proceedings for verification, the deduction should not be denied merely because of a delay in filing the form.
The Commissioner (Appeals), however, rejected the contention by relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax III, Bangalore & Another v. Wipro Limited, holding that the requirement of filing a declaration within the prescribed timeline was mandatory and required strict compliance.
Before the Tribunal, the assessee relied upon the ITAT Jaipur decision in Raniwala Jewelers Private Limited, where an identical issue relating to delayed filing of Form 10DA for claiming deduction under Section 80JJAA had been decided in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal in that case had distinguished the Supreme Court’s decision in Wipro Limited, holding that it dealt with an exemption provision, whereas Section 80JJAA concerns a deduction from income. The Tribunal had instead applied the Supreme Court’s decision in CIT, Maharashtra v. G.M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd., which held that filing the prescribed form during assessment proceedings and before completion of assessment constituted sufficient compliance.
The assessee also relied upon the decision of the ITAT Kolkata in Tarasafe International Private Limited, where the Tribunal had similarly held that the Wipro Limited decision was not applicable to deduction provisions under Section 80JJAA and had followed the Supreme Court’s ruling in G.M. Knitting Industries.
The Departmental Representative was unable to dispute the assessee’s submission that several Coordinate Benches of the ITAT had distinguished the Wipro Limited decision in cases involving deduction under Section 80JJAA and delayed filing of Form 10DA.
After considering the submissions, the Tribunal observed that the issue was squarely covered by various Coordinate Bench decisions in favour of the assessee. It held that since Form 10DA had been filed before the intimation under Section 143(1) was issued, the denial of the deduction was not in accordance with the legal position interpreted by the courts.
The Tribunal further held that the Commissioner (Appeals) had incorrectly relied upon the Wipro Limited judgment because various ITAT decisions had consistently held that the Supreme Court ruling related to exemption provisions and was not applicable to deduction provisions such as Section 80JJAA.
Accordingly, the Tribunal directed that the assessee be granted the deduction of ₹16,76,625 under Section 80JJAA. The appeal was allowed.
Appellant was Represented by : Sh. Devang Gargieya, Adv.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT JAIPUR
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, Addl./JCIT(A)-5, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”) under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) dated 28-07-25.
2. The assessee in this appeal has taken following grounds of appeal:-
1. The impugned additions and disallowances made in the order u/s 143(1) dated 05.05.2025 are bad in law and on facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction and various other reasons and hence the same kindly be deleted.
2. The ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the disallowance of deduction of ₹16,76,625/- claimed u/s 80JJAA of the Act, made by the ld. AO on the sole ground that Form 10DA was not filed along with the return of income, without appreciating that the certificate was duly obtained from a Chartered Accountant on 24.08.2024, well before the due date of filing the return u/s 139(1). The disallowance so made and confirmed being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts on the record, kindly be deleted in full.
3. The ld. AO erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234C of the Act. The appellant totally denies it liability of charging of any such interest. The interest, so charged, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be deleted in full.
4. The appellant prays your honour to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing.
5. The impugned additions and disallowances made in the order u/s 143(1) dated 05.05.2025 are bad in law and on facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction and various other reasons and hence the same kindly be deleted.
3. The solitary issue in the present appeal relates to denial of claim of deduction of Rs.16,76,625/- u/s 80JJAA of the Act on account of the delay in filing Form 10DA for claiming the said deduction.
4. The facts on record reveal that the delay in filing Form 10DA was only one day. The assessee was required to upload Form 10DA along with the return of income upto 15.11.2024, however, the same was uploaded on 16.11.2024. The denial of deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act, was made in the intimation order passed u/s 143(1) of the Act, which was passed on 05.05.2025. Thus, Form 10DA was filed and was on record, when the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act, was made on the assessee.
5. The assessee pleaded before the Ld. CIT(A) that this issue of denial of grant of deduction on account of delay in filing the requisite form has been dealt with by the Coordinate Benches of the ITAT in number of cases holding the requirement of filing form to be procedural, and that as long as, same was available during assessment proceedings for verification by the AO, there was no reason for denying claim of deduction to the assessee. That however, the Ld. CIT(A), referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax III Bangalore and Another Vs. M/s Wipro Limited in Civil Appeal No.1449 of 2022 dated 11.07.2022, had dismissed the contention of the assessee pointing out that, the Hon’ble Apex Court had applied “strict” construction and held that the requirement of filing a declaration within a timeline is “mandatory” in nature, and noted therefore, to be “strictly” and “literally” complied with.
6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the Coordinate Benches of the ITAT in various cases, had dealt with an identical issue and had distinguished the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Wipro Limited (Supra), and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. My attention was drawn to the decision of ITAT Jaipur in the case of Raniwala Jewelers Private Limited Vs. Asstt./Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax in ITA No.10/JPR/2025 dated 06.05.2025, wherein it was pointed out that the identical issue of denial grant of deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act for delay in filing the form 10DA was dealt with by the ITAT and the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Wipro Ltd. (Supra) was referred to by the Revenue, which was duly held by the ITAT to be not applicable in the facts of the case, and that the ITAT had further held that the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of [2016] 71 taxmann.com 35 (SC) CIT, Maharashtra Vs. G.M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd. would apply, wherein it was held that if the requisite forms were filed during assessment proceedings, and before the assessment was made, it would tantamount to sufficient compliance. My attention was drawn to page 4 of the order wherein the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Wipro Limited (Supra) was distinguished by the ITAT, as not applicable in the facts of the case holding that the judgment dealt with the issue of exemption claimed by the assessee, while u/s 80JJAA, the assessee’s claim was deduction from income of the assessee. That therefore the Hon’ble apex court in Wipro(supra) noted exemption provisions to be “strictly” interpreted and the said decision was not applicable to facts where deduction had been claimed by the assessee.
7. Thereafter, my attention was drawn to the decision of the ITAT Kolkatavide in the case of [2024] 168 taxmann.com 514 Tarasafe International Private Limited C/o Dutta Properties Vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax, wherein again the identical issue of deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act was dealt with, which was denied for the delay in filing of form 10DA, and the ITAT, it was pointed out, had distinguished, and held the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Wipro Limited (Supra) to be not applicable for the same reason, that the said decision was rendered in the context of exemption provisions, while the claim in the facts of the case relating to deduction provisions which was covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of G.M. Knitting Industries (Supra)in favour of the assessee.
8. The Ld. DR before me, was unable to controvert the contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee before me, that various decisions of ITAT had distinguished the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Wipro Limited (Supra), and held the same to be not applicable, on the issue of denial of grant of deduction more particularly u/s 80JJAA of the Act on account of delay of filing in requisite forms.
9. In the light of the above, since it is amply clear and duly demonstrated that, the issue for consideration before me, that is denial of grant of deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act on account of delay in filing form 10DA stands squarely covered in the favour of the assessee by various decisions of the Coordinate Benches of the ITAT, I have no hesitation in holding that the assessee in facts of the present case, having filed the requisite form 10DA, well before the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act was made on the assessee, the denial so made was not as per the proposition of law interpreted by Courts in this regard. The order of Ld. CIT(A), denying the grant of deduction relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Wipro Limited (Supra), I find does not stand to the test of judicial scrutiny, since the various decisions of the ITAT ,as pointed out by the ld. Counsel for the assessee before me, have held the said decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court to be not applicable on deduction provisions, as is the facts of the present case.
10. In the light of the above, I direct the assessee to be granted deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act amounting to Rs.16,76,625/-.
11. In effect, the appeal of the assessee is therefore, allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 30.06.2026.
Author Bio
