Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
Sundram Fasteners Limited,Chennai vs The Acit, Corporate Ward 6(1), Chennai, ... on 9 April, 2026
ITA No.216 & 217/Chny/2026
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण,'बी' यायपीठ,चे नई
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
'B' BENCH, CHENNAI
ी एबी ट वक , या यक सद य एवं ी बालकृ णन एस, लेखा सद य के सम
BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
&
SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आईटीए. नं. / ITA No. 216 and 217/CHNY/2026 (A.Y. 2020-21 & 2024-25)
Sundram Fastners Limited, The Assistant Commissioner of
98-A, 7th Floor, Dr. Radhakrishnan Income Tax
Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-600004 Coporate Ward-6(1), Chennai
[PAN: AAACS8779D]
(अपीलाथ / Appellant) ( थ / Respondent)
अपीलाथ की ओर से / Appellant by : Mr. Sudar Mani, Advocate for
Mr. Vikram Vijayaraghavan
Advocate.
थ की ओर से/Respondent by : Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT (for Sr.
DR)
सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 18.03.2026
घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 09.04.2026
आदे श /O R D E R
PER SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
1. These appeals are filed by the assessee against order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata [hereinafter in short "Ld.CIT(A)"] vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025- Page No. ITA No.216 & 217/Chny/2026 26/1082679500(1) & ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1082928891(1) dated 17.11.2025 & 24.11.2025 for the A.Y. 2020-21 & 2024-25 respectively, arising out of the intimation passed under section 143(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'Act') dated 29.12.2021 & 05.06.2025 respectively.
2. Since, the assessee is same and the issues are common these appeals are clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order being passed.
First we take the appeal in ITA No.216/Chny/2026 and the facts culled out therefrom.
3. Briefly stated that the facts of the case are the assessee being a company filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2021 on 15.02.2021 declaring a total income of Rs.3,68,55,60,360/-. The said return of income was summarily processed u/s 143(1) on 29.12.2021 wherein the CPC made an addition of Rs.9,09,33,758/-.
4. On being aggrieved by the addition made by the CPC the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld CIT(A). Before the ld CIT(A), the assessee made various written submissions challenging the assessment order, since the intimation u/s 143(1) dated 29.12.2021 was sent on 27.05.2023 which is beyond the expiry of one year from the end of the F.Y. in which the return is furnished. The ld CIT(A) after perusal of the records found that the intimation was sent after the expiry of due date in contravention to 2nd proviso of section 143(1) of the Act. The ld CIT(A) allowed the grounds of appeal raised on these issues. However, the ld CIT(A) Page No. ITA No.216 & 217/Chny/2026 proceeded to decide the issue on merit. Thereafter, thus the ld CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.
5. On being aggrieved by the order of the ld CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us by raising the following grounds:-
"1. Issuance of Intimation U/s. 143(1) beyond the prescribed time limit as per second proviso of section 143(1) of the Income Act 1961 by CPC, Bangalore:
1.1 The Deputy Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore, (AO) erred in issuing the intimation under S.143(1) beyond time limit prescribed under second proviso to S.143(1) which holds no intimation can be issued after the expiry of one year from the end of Financial Year in which Retum of Income is filed. In the present case, the intimation for AY 2020-21 ought to have been issued on or before 31.03.2022; but was issued only on 27.05.2023.
Accordingly, the CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that impugned intimation is barred by limitation and is void ab initio. 1.2 The CIT(A) while having allowed the appeal on issue of S.143(1) being time-barred, after due verification of records, ought not to have proceeded to adjudicate the issue on merits on application of S.36(1) (va) relating to delayed remittance of employees' contribution to PF.
1.3 The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that once intimation u/s.143(1) is held to be time-barred, no adjustment under section 143(1) could survive. Any adjudication on merits in respect of such time-barred intimation is without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.
2. The appellant craves leave to file additional grounds at the time of hearing"
Basically, the grounds challenged the issuance of intimation beyond the time limit prescribed under 2nd proviso to section 143(1) and further the authority of ld CIT(A) to adjudicate the case on merits after allowing the appeal on the issue of time barring intimation issued by the CPC.
Page No. ITA No.216 & 217/Chny/2026
6. The ld AR submitted that since the ld CIT(A) allowed the grounds raised in favour of the assessee on the issue of intimation u/s 143(1) beyond the time limit prescribed in the 2nd proviso to section 143(1) of the Act, the ld CIT(A) ought not to have adjudicated the appeal on merits, since intimation u/s 143(1) becomes null and void and does not survive.
7. Per contra the ld DR heavily relied on the orders of the Revenue authorities.
8. We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. It is noted that assessee filed the return of income on 15.02.2021 and the intimation was dated 29.12.2021 for the A.Y 2020-21. It is also not disputed that the intimation dated 29.12.2021 was sent to the assessee on 27.05.2023 which is beyond the prescribed time as per the 2nd proviso to section 143(1) of the Act. The ld CIT(A) has held as follows: -
"I have carefully perused facts and grounds of appeal of the case. Before deciding the merit of the case, it is imperative to note that in ground of appeal no. 3, assessee has disputed adjustments made by CPC without giving any opportunity/issuing any intimation either in writing or in electronic mode as per section 143(1)(a) of the Act. From records, it is found that no prior intimation was given to assessee before making the adjustment. Further in grounds of appeal no. 4 & 5, assessee has disputed that intimation dated 29.12.2021 was sent to assessee on 27.05.2023 after expiry of one year from the end of the financial year in which the return was made as per second proviso of section 143(1)(a) of the Act. Records have been perused. From records, it is found that the intimation was sent after expiry of due date which is in contravention to second proviso of section 143(1) of the Act. Assessee succeeds on these grounds of appeal."
9. However, the ld CIT(A) has travelled beyond the jurisdiction and adjudicated the grounds on merits. Once the issue of limitation raised by the assessee is decided Page No. ITA No.216 & 217/Chny/2026 in favour of the assessee by treating the intimation not existing in the eyes of law, thereafter proceeding to adjudicate on the merits by the ld CIT(A) is not in accordance with law. On perusal of the intimation, we find that intimation was sent to the assessee after the prescribed time period as per proviso 2 to section 143(1) of the Act. The ld CIT(A) has rightly observed that it contravenes the 2nd proviso to section 143(1) of the Act and therefore, allowed the appeal of the assessee on this ground which means that assessment order becomes infructuous. However, the ld CIT(A) has travelled beyond the jurisdiction to adjudicate the other grounds on merit which in our opinion is not justifiable. We are therefore inclined to set aside the intimation passed u/s 143(1) of the Act, as it does not survive and being void ab initio. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.
10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Next, we shall take up appeal in ITA No. 217/Chny/2026 for Assessment Year 2024-2025.
11. Briefly stated the facts of the case are the assessee being a company filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2024-25 on 29.11.2024 declaring a total income of Rs.6,40,43,67,170/-. The return was summarily processed u/s 143(1) on 05.06.2025 by making an addition of Rs.40,49,220/-. The CPC Bangalore has disallowed the amount of Rs.40,49,219/- and stated that assessee has not filed Form 10DA along with return of income for claiming the deduction u/s 80JJAA.
Page No. ITA No.216 & 217/Chny/2026
12. On being aggrieved by the intimation, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld CIT(A). Before the ld CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the assessee has filed Form 10DA claiming deduction u/s 80JJAA on 29.11.2024. The assessee submitted before the ld CIT(A) that the return of income was filed within the extended due date of 15.12.2024 and the Form 10DA was filed belatedly on 29.11.2024 wherein it ought to have been filed online at one month prior to the due date furnishing return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. The ld AR for the assessee relied on various case laws as cited before the ld CIT(A). However, the ld CIT(A), dismissed the appeal by disallowing the deduction of Rs. 40,49,220/- claimed by the assessee and thereby upheld the addition made by the CPC.
13. On being aggrieved by the order of the ld CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us by raising the following grounds:-
"1. Deduction U/s, 8OJJAA-Deduction in respect of employment of new employees:
1.1 The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of deduction u/s 8OJJAA amounting to Rs. 40.49.219/-made by the Deputy Director of Income Tax. CPC Bangalore 1.2 The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Appellant had duly claimed the deduction uls. 80.JJAA in its Return of Income after fiting the audit report in Form No. 10DA and therefore, the deduction claimed was in accordance with law and liable to be allowed.
1.3 The CIT(A), ought to have considered that Form 100A was filed along with Retum of Income and the delay in filing audit report (Form 10DA) 1 month prior to the retum, though a procedural requirement, should not invalidate Appellant's substantive right to the benefit of deduction Uis 80JJAA.
Page No. ITA No.216 & 217/Chny/2026 1.4 The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the filing an audit report is directory, and not mandatory, and an audit report filed even during the course of assessment proceedings is required to be considered and allowed. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. G.M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd. [2015] 376 ITR 456 (SC)/[2016] 71 taxmann.com 35 1.5 The CIT(A) erred in denying the Appellant the benefit of deduction u/s. 80JJAA on account of a mere procedural lapse in filing Form No. 10DA within the prescribed time, despite the Appellant being otherwise eligible for the deduction. The issue stands squarely covered in favour of the Appellant by the decision of the Ahmedabad Bench of the ITAT in Sunrise Industries (India) v. Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara, ITA No. 282/Ahd/2025 dated 21.05.2025.
2. The appellant craves leave to file additional grounds at the time of hearing."
14. The only issue emanating from the above grounds is with respect to the disallowance of deduction u/s 80JJAA amounting to Rs.40,49,219/-. On this issue, the ld AR submitted that the assessee filed Form 10DA on 29.11.2024 along with the return of income. However, the CPC has disallowed the deduction stating that it was not filed on or before the due date prescribed. He, further, submitted that various judicial pronouncements have held that filing of Form 10DA is directory but not mandatory and if it is available before the conclusion to the assessment proceedings, deduction cannot be denied to the assessee. He, therefore, pleaded that the deduction disallowed by the CPC be deleted.
15. Per contra the ld DR heavily relied on the orders of the Revenue Authorities.
16. We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. It is a fact that the assessee has filed return of income on 29.11.2024 and claimed Page No. ITA No.216 & 217/Chny/2026 deduction u/s 80JJAA by filing Form 10DA on the same date i.e. 29.11.2024 along with the return of income. However, it is noted that the Form 10DA ought to have been filed by 30.09.2024. Delay in filing of Form 10DA being a directory requirement shall not be deterrent in claiming the benefit of deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act. Moreover, the assessee has filed Form 10DA on 29.11.2024 whereas the intimation was generated on 05.06.2025. On the date of generation of the intimation, the Form 10DA is available in the ITBA Portal, the CPC ought to have taken into consideration the Form filed belatedly by the assessee. Further, we also note that section 80JJAA sub-section 2 Clause C of the Act prescribe that the assessee himself furnish the report of the accountant in Form 10DA of the Act before the specified date referred to in section 44AB of the Act. Section 44AB of the Act defines the specified date. The specified date means date on month prior to the due date for furnishing the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. However, Rule 19AB of the Income Tax Act Rules, 1962 states as follows:-
"Rule 19AB of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, mandates that an assessee claiming a deduction under Section 80JJAA (for employment of new employees) must submit an accountant's report. This report, verifying the deduction amount, must be furnished in Form No. 10DA along with the return of income."
On the plain reading of the above rule we note that Rule 19AB stipulates that report of accountant to be furnished along with the return of income. However, in our opinion when there is inconsistency between provisions of the Act and the Rules, the provisions of the Act will prevail. The co-ordinate Bench in the case of Sai ComputersLtd v. Asstt. DIT, CPC [2023] 155 taxmann.com 607 (Delhi - Trib.) held as under:
Page No. ITA No.216 & 217/Chny/2026
"17. under the circumstances, the assessee seeks to submit that once the substantial compliance has been made by filing the prescribed form albeit after the return of income, such belated filing of prescribed form is not fatal in the sense that the requirement of Rule 19AB and Rule 12(2) are not mandatory per se but are essentially directory in nature. We find that the Bangalore Bench in Jeans Knit (supra) has taken a view that filing of such prescribed form is directory requirement and hence would stands satisfied if the Accountant's report is furnished during the course of assessment.
18. In consonance with the view taken by the Co- ordinate Bench, the denial of deduction under section80JJAA solely reasons of belated filing of the prescribed form is not justified. Consequently, the action ofthe CIT(A) is set aside and the Assessing Officer is directed to grant relief by way of deduction asclaimed. Ground No. 1 is accordingly allowed.
In the case of CIT v. G. M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd [2016] 71 taxmann.com 35/[2015] 376 ITR 456 (SC)the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, even though it is necessary to file certificate in Form 10CCB along with the return of income, but even if the same has not been filed with the return of income, but the same was filed before the final order of assessment was made, the assessee was entitled to claim deduction under section 80-IB. The Co-ordinate Bench of Bangalore in IIFL Samasta Finance Ltd. v Dy. CIT [2025] vs DCIT reported in 76 taxman.com.278, it was held that even though the requirement of furnishing the report of an accountant in Form 10DA is mandatory the filing thereof is a procedural aspect once the report of the accountant in Form 10DA was available before the CPC at the time of processing intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act even though the same may not be filed on or before the due date of furnishing the same the assessee is entitled to claim the deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act. We extract below the relevant Para:
Now coming to the issue whether requirement of furnishing the report of an Accountant in form10DA on or before the due date is mandatory to claim the deduction u/s 80JJA of the Act ? We are of the considered opinion that obviously the requirement of furnishing the report of an accountant is mandatory, however the filing thereof is a procedural aspect. Once the report of the Accountant in Form 10DA was available before the CPC at the time of passing intimation u/ s 143(1) of the act, even though the same may not be filed on or before the due date of furnishing the same, the assessee is entitled to claim Page No. ITA No.216 & 217/Chny/2026 the deduction u/ s 80JJAA of the Act. Thus, when the report of an accountant was part of the record of the AO during the processing of the return of income, the AO could not have denied the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80JJAA of the Act. In holding so, we get the guidance & support from the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income tax, Maharashtra v. G. M. Knitting Industries(P.) /Ltd. Reported in [2016] 71 taxmann.com 35 (SC) which held as under:
"1. It would be suffice to reproduce para 2 of the impugned order whereby action of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was held to be justified in allowing additional depreciation as claimed by the respondent-assessee herein: "Additional depreciation is denied to the assessee on the ground that the assessee has failed to furnish form 3AA along with the return of income. Admittedly, Form 3AA was submitted during the course of assessment proceedings and it is not in dispute that the assessee is entitled to the additional depreciation. In these circumstances, in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shivanand Electronics [1994] 209 ITR 63 (Bom), we see no merit in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs."
We concur with the aforesaid view of the High Court and hold that even if Form 3AA was not filed along with return of income but the same was filed during the assessment proceedings and before the final order of the assessment was made that would amount to sufficient compliance. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed." Respectfully, following the decision of the Apex court and considering the facts that the assessee is claiming the deduction from the Asst. year 2019-20 onwards & the Form 10DA for the Asst. year 2023-24 was filed even before the due date of filing the return and the same was also part of the record of the AO during the processing of the return of income, the AO could not have denied the deduction claimed by the assessee u/ s 80JJAA of the Act
17. Respectfully following the judicial precedents as discussed aforesaid and considering the facts of the case we deem it fit and proper to remit the issue to the file of ld AO with the observation for the limited verification of quantification of allowable deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act. Assessee company is also directed to produce the relevant information, list of documents, list of report to substantiate its claim. Needless to say that ld AO shall provide a reasonable opportunity on being heard to the assessee. It is ordered accordingly.
18. The grounds raised in appeal filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Page No. ITA No.216 & 217/Chny/2026
19. In the result, the appeals in ITA No.216/Chny/2026 & 217/Chny/2027 of the assessee are statistically allowed.
.
Order pronounced in the open court on 09th April, 2026.
Sd/- Sd/-
(एबी ट वक ) (बालकृ णन एस)
(ABY T VARKEY) (SHRI BALAKRISHNAN)
या यक सद य/Judicial Member लेखा सद य/Accountant Member
चे नई/Chennai,
दनांक/Dated, 09th April, 2026
YS-
आदे श की ितिलिप अ ेिषत/Copy to:
1. अपीलाथ /Appellant,
2. थ / Respondent,
3. आयकर आयु /CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem
4. िवभागीय ितिनिध/DR
5. गाड फाईल/GF.
Page No.