Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Raipur
Shri Raj Kumar Bothra, Raipur,Raipur vs Dcit, Circle-1(1), Raipur, Raipur on 6 April, 2026
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपु र ायपीठ, रायपु र
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR
ी पाथ सारथी चौधरी, ाियक सद एवं ी अवधेश कुमार िम , लेखा सद के सम
BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM &
SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, AM
आयकर अपील सं . / ITA No: 8/RPR/2026
(िनधारण वष Assessment Year: 2024-25)
Shri Raj Kumar Bothra, C-101/5, vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
First Floor, Tagore Nagar, Raipur- Circle-1(1), Income Tax Department,
492001 (C.G.) Raipur-492001 (C.G.)
PAN: ADEBP9688C
(अपीलाथ /Appellant) : ( थ / Respondent)
िनधा रती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri Sakshi Gopal Aggarwal, CA
राज की ओर से / Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
सु नवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 18/03/2026
घोषणा की तारीख / Date of : 06/04/2026
Pronouncement
आदे श / O R D E R
Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, AM:
This appeal for Assessment Year ('AY') 2024-25 filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.12.2025 of the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), ['Addl. CIT(A)'], Faridabad passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act').
2. The sole issue in dispute is only disallowance of claim of deduction of Rs.3,34,16,370/- under section 80JJAA of the Act on the reasoning that the assessee has not filed Form 10DA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ('IT Rules') by 1 ITA No.8/RPR/2026 Shri Raj Kumar Bothra, Raipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur 31.10.2024, i.e. extended specified period as per the relevant provisions of the Act read with Rule 19AB of the Income Tax Rules.
3. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal for adjudication of this case are that the assessee, engaged in the business of man-power supply, filed his original Income Tax Return ('ITR) on 26.10.2024 declaring income of Rs.5,47,13,350/-. Later, the assessee filed his revised ITR on 10.12.2024 declaring income of Rs.2,12,96,980/- after claiming deduction of Rs.3,34,16,370/- under section 80JJAA of the Act. The said revised ITR was processed under section 143(1) of the Act on 27.06.2025; wherein the claim of deduction of Rs.3,34,16,370/- under section 80JJAA of the Act was disallowed by CPC-ITR on the reasoning that the assessee had failed to file Form 10DA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, within the stipulated time; i.e. on or before 31.10.2024. Aggrieved with the processing of the revised ITR under section 143(1) of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal as under:
"5.3 Section 80JJAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides a tax deduction of 30% of the "additional employee cost" to eligible business for three consecutive assessment years. Further, to claim deduction u/s 80JJAA, business must have their accounts audited under Section 44AB and file their Income Tax Return by the due date. A report from a Chartered Accountant in Form 10DA is also required and must be submitted online one month before the ITR deadline.
5.4 From the above, it is inferred that due date for filing Form 10DA for AY 2024-25 was 31/10/2024 (extended). However, in the present appeal, the appellant had filed his Form 10DA for AY 2024-25 on 05.12.2024, which is 2 ITA No.8/RPR/2026 Shri Raj Kumar Bothra, Raipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur beyond the time limit. Therefore, in these circumstances, the deduction claimed u/s 80JJAA of the Act cannot be allowed in view of the late filing for Form 10DA. Thus, it is held that the CPC has rightly disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 80JJAA made by the CPC is sustained. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are hereby dismissed."
4. Shri Sakshi Gopal Aggrawal, CA, Ld. Authorized Representative ('Ld. AR') of the assessee argued the case by submitting that the filing of Form 10DA of the IT Rules was not mandatory but directory in the nature and therefore, the disallowance of claim of deduction under section 80JJAA of the Act was not justified. He placed reliance in the following Tribunal decisions:
(a) Electronica Finance Limited vs DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru Pune Bench "A", Pune (ITA Nos. 1111 & 1112/PUN/2025);
(b) Jubilant Food Works Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(1), Noida in the Income Tax Appellant Tribunal Delhi Bench "A"
Delhi (ITA No. 184/DEL/2025);
(c) Tarasafe International Private Limited vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax CPC, Bengaluru, decision of "A" Bench Kolkata (ITA No. 627/Kol/2024) and;
(d) Creamline Dairy Products Limited vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad ITAT Hyderabad "B" Bench (ITA Nos. 1156 & 1157/Hyd/2024.).
5. Further, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee was eligible to claim deduction under section 80JJAA of the Act. However, the disallowance was made 3 ITA No.8/RPR/2026 Shri Raj Kumar Bothra, Raipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur only due to delay in filing of Form 10DA of the Income Tax Rules. He contended that the filing of Form 10DA of the Income Tax Rules for claiming deduction under section 80JJAA of the Act was similar to the filing of Form 10B of the Income Tax Rules for claiming exemption under section 10(23C) and 11 of the Act. The Ld. AR, drawing our attention to the CBDT Circular No. 10/2019 dated 22.05.2019, submitted that the filing of the audit report in Form No. 10B was directory in nature and not mandatary and that was why the CBDT condoned the delay in filing the audit report in Form No. 10B for AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18 even without filing the condonation petition by assessees. However, the said Circular was silent for other AYs. The Ld. AR further submitted that the requirement of filing of Form No. 10B was directory in nature and thus, was curable. Similarly, the requirement of filing of Form No. 10DA was directory in nature and thus, was curable. The Ld. AR placed emphasis on the decision of Pune Tribunal in the case of Electronica Finance Limited (supra), wherein it had been held as under:
"10. We have heard Ld. counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record. In this regard, we find the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the ITA Nos.1111 & 1112/PUN/2025 coordinate bench of this Tribunal passed in the case of Tarasafe International Private Limited vs. DDIT, CPC, Bengaluru, ITA No.627/Kolkata/2024 order dated 03.10.2024 for assessment year 2023-24 wherein under identical facts and similar circumstances even after belated filing of Form 10DA the deduction u/s 80JJAA was allowed to the assessee by observing as under :-4 ITA No.8/RPR/2026
Shri Raj Kumar Bothra, Raipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur "2. The short issue involved in this appeal is as to whether the late filing of audit report in Form 10DA would disentitle the assessee from claiming deduction u/s. 80JJAA of the Act, when the said Form 10DA was available to the Ld. AO at the time of assessment proceedings. The assessee in this case filed the Form 10DA on 27.10.2023 as against the due date of 30.09.2023 but, the same was available to the AO at the time of processing the return of income as the notice u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Act was issued by the CPC to the assessee on 23.11.2023.
3. The issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. G. M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd. [2016]12 SCC 272/[2016] 71 taxmann.com 35/376 ITR 456 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has 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 u/s. 80-IB of the Act.
4. So far as the reliance of the ld. DR on the another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT v. Wipro Ltd. [2022] 140 taxmann.com 223/288 Taxman 491/446 ITR 1 (SC) which is also relied on by LD CIT(A), is concerned, it is to be observed that the said case is relating to the claim of exemption u/s. 10B falling under Chapter III of the I. T. Act. However, the claim of the assessee in the case in hand is u/s.
80JJAA of the Act under Chapter VIA of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 11 of the judgment in the case of Wipro Ltd. (supra) has clarified the position that the exemption provisions are to be strictly adhered to whereas the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G. M. Knitting Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is relating to deduction 5 ITA No.8/RPR/2026 Shri Raj Kumar Bothra, Raipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur provisions u/s. VA of the Act the relevant para 11 of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Wipro Ltd. (supra) is reproduced below:
"11. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this court in the case of G. M. Knitting Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee is concerned, section 10B(8) is an exemption provision which cannot be compared with claiming an additional depreciation under section 32(1)(ii-a) of the Act. As per the settled position of law, an assessee claiming exemption has to strictly and literally comply with the exemption provisions. Therefore, the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand, while considering the exemption provisions. Even otherwise, Chapter III and Chapter VIA of the Act operate in different realms and principles of Chapter III, which deals with "income which do not form a part of total income", cannot be equated with mechanism provided for deductions in Chapter VIA, which deals with "deductions to be made in computing total income".
Therefore, none of the decisions which are relied upon on behalf of the assessee on interpretation of Chapter VIA shall be applicable while considering the claim under section 10B(8) of the I. T. Act." In view of this, the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G. M. Knitting Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra) the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is, therefore, set aside and the AO is directed to grant deduction to the assessee u/s. 80JJAA of the Act as claimed. The appeal of the assessee stands allowed."
6 ITA No.8/RPR/2026
Shri Raj Kumar Bothra, Raipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur
6. On the other hand, Dr. Priyanka Patel, Ld. Sr. DR placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Wipro Ltd. [2022] 140 taxmann.com 223, decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries; 201 ITR 325, decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Kerala State Industries Development Corporation; 233 ITR 197 and a decision by Karnataka High Court in the case of Multi Axes Systems Ltd.; 317 ITR 329. She further contended that the filing of the Form 10DA of the Income Tax Rules was mandatory as there was a time limit for filing the said report; hence, the disallowance made by the CPC-ITR was justified. She argued that the revised ITR could not revive the dead claim which had not been made in the original ITR.
7. We have heard both parties and have perused the material available on the record. We find merit in contentions/arguments/submissions of the Ld. AR that failing in filing the audit report in Form No. 10DA within the stipulated time is a curable defect which gets buttressed by the above-mentioned case laws relied upon the Ld. AR and with the intent of above-mentioned Circular of the CBDT. We are of the considered view that this case is squarely covered by the decision of Pune Tribunal in the case of Electronica Finance Limited (supra). We therefore, following the reasoning given by the Pune Tribunal in the case of Electronica Finance Limited (supra), hold that the disallowance of claim of deduction of Rs.3,34,16,370/- under section 80JJAA of the Act is not justified in the case in 7 ITA No.8/RPR/2026 Shri Raj Kumar Bothra, Raipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur hand. Accordingly, we direct the Ld. Assessing Officer to allow the claim of deduction of Rs.3,34,16,370/- under section 80JJAA of the Act to the assessee. The assessee gets consequential relief.
8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above.
Order pronounced in the open court on 06/04/2026.
Sd/- Sd/-
(PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) (AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA)
ाियक सद / JUDICIAL MEMBER ले खा सद / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
रायपु र / Raipur; िदनां क Dated 06/04/2026
HKS, PS
आदे शकी ितिलिप अ े िषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant
2. थ / The Respondent
3. The Pr. CIT, Raipur (C.G.)
4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,
रायपु र/ DR, ITAT, Raipur
5. गाड फाईल / Guard file.
आदे शानुसार/ BY ORDER,
//True copy//
(Private Secretary)
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur
8