AAKASH BHARDWAJ,UTTAR PRADESH V. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, CIRCLE 1, GHAZIABAD

ITA 5995/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Aakash Bhardwaj, who appealed against the order of the Ld. JCIT(A), Indore, which upheld the disallowance of a deduction claimed under section 80JJAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The deduction was initially claimed in a revised return filed within the extended due date, but was disallowed because the mandatory audit report in Form 10DA was not filed with the original return. The Tribunal considered various judicial precedents and the specific circumstances of the case, including the filing of the revised return and the audit report within the extended deadlines provided by CBDT circulars.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 838282 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2024-2025
• Appeal Filed On: 24-09-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Commissioner of Income-tax, Maharashtra vs. G. M. Knitting Industries(P.) Ltd., Jubliant Food Works Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANOJ KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: R.K. MEHRA
• Keywords: Revised return; Procedural lapse
• Section: 80IB

Judgement Text

"5995_DEL_2025_Aakash Bhardwaj vs AO 1 | P a g e IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & MRS. RENU JAUHRI, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 5995/DEL/2025; A.Y.: 2024-25 Aakash Bhardwaj, R 10/32, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh- 201002 Vs AO Circle-1 Ghaziabad (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. BIQPB6512H Assessee by : Shri R.K. Mehra, CA Revenue by : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 10.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 20.02.2026 ORDER PER RENU JAUHRI : The above captioned appeal is preferred against the order dated 07.08.2025, passed by Ld. JCIT(A), Indore u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as, “Act”), in Appeal No. ADDL/JCIT (A) INDORE/10046/2023-24 for A.Y. 2024-25. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the petitioner's case, the learned First Appellate Authority erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of the learned assessing officer in disallowing deduction claimed under section 80JJAA of the Income tax Act, 1961 amounted to Rs.8678703, though restricted to Rs.6492387 as per law, allegedly on the ground that the petitioner had filed his Return of Income beyond the due date of Income under section 139(1) of the Income tax Act 1961. Printed from counselvise.com 5995_DEL_2025_Aakash Bhardwaj vs AO 2 | P a g e 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the petitioner's case, the learned First Appellate Authority erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of the learned assessing officer in ignoring that the due date of filing Return of Income under section 139(1) of the Act was extended to 15-11- 2024 by CBDT vide Circular No. 13/2024 issued on 26-10-2024 and whereas the Return of Income was filed on 07-11-2024 before the expiry of extended due date. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the petitioner's case, the learned First Appellate Authority erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of the learned assessing officer in disallowing his claim made under section 80JJA solely for late filing of Form 10DA which was filed along with the revised Return of Income on 15-01-2025, within the extended date of filing revised return of income on 15-01-2025 vide CBDT Circular No.21/2024 issued on 31-12-2024. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the petitioner's case, the learned First Appellate Authority erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of the learned assessing officer in ignoring that late filing of Form 10DA, if any, happens to be a procedural lapse and this claim made under section 80JJAA of the Act, should not have been disallowed based on highly technical grounds causing injustice to the petitioner. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the petitioner's case, the learned First Appellate Authority erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of the learned assessing officer and for not appreciating that the petitioner had filed his income tax return in New Tax Regime and the deduction under section 80JJAA of the Act is duly allowable in New Tax Regime as well. ” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of providing industrial manpower to his clients and had filed its return for A.Y. 2024-25 on 07.11.2024. Subsequently, the assessee revised its return on 15.01.2025, declaring income of Rs. 25,41,180/-, wherein deduction u/s 80JJAA of Rs. 64,92,387/- was claimed. The return was processed u/s 143(1) by the CPC wherein the claim of deduction u/s 80JJAA was disallowed on the ground that the mandatory audit report in Form 10DA was not filed along with the original return. Printed from counselvise.com 5995_DEL_2025_Aakash Bhardwaj vs AO 3 | P a g e Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) noted that the Form 10DA had been filed on 15.01.2025, claiming deduction of Rs. 64,92,387/- u/s 80JJAA in the revised return whereas no such deduction had been claimed in the original return. In this regard, Ld. CIT(A) held that as per section 80AC, the assessee should have filed this report within due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) but the requisite report in Form 10DA was only filed on 15.01.2025 along with the revised return and, therefore, the mandatory conditions for claiming deduction u/s 80JJAA have not been fulfilled. The assessee’s appeal was accordingly dismissed. 3.1 Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal, raising multiple grounds. However, the sole substantive issue relates to the disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80JJAA of the Act. 4. Before us, Ld. AR has argued that the assessee had filed its return within the extended due date i.e. on 07.11.2024. However, no 80JJAA claim was made therein. Subsequently, revised return along with Form 10DA filed on 15.01.2025 claiming the impugned deduction u/s 80JJAA. The revised return was also filed by the extended due date of filing revised return as per CBDT’s instructions in this regard. The intimation u/s 143(1) was issued by CPC on 05.05.2025 and, therefore, the revised return as well as the mandatory audit report in Form 10DA was available on record at the time of processing. In view of various judicial pronouncements on similar issues, Ld. AR has argued that the assessee’s claim Printed from counselvise.com 5995_DEL_2025_Aakash Bhardwaj vs AO 4 | P a g e u/s 80JJAA should have been allowed as the mandatory audit report had been filed well before the return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. 4.1 Reliance has been placed by Ld. AR on various judicial pronouncements on the issues. Some of these are discussed below: (i) Commissioner of Income-tax, Maharashtra vs. G. M. Knitting Industries(P.) Ltd.[2016] 71 taxmann.com 35 (SC) wherein Hon’ble Apex Court held in the context of claim of deduction u/s 80IB that even if the mandatory form (Form 3AA) was not filed along with the return on income and same was filed during the assessment proceedings and before the final order of the assessment was made, that would amount to sufficient compliance of the requirements. (ii) Following this decision, several co-ordinate benches have decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Specifically, in the case of Jubliant Food Works Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [2025] 177 taxmann.com 374 (Delhi-Trib.) on identical facts and circumstances, the Hon’ble co-ordinate Bench has held as under: “ 10. We have heard the parties and gone through the material available on record. In the instant case the report of the accountant in Form No. 10DA was available before the CPC at the time of processing of the revised return of the assessee. The judgments relied by the Ld. DR, do not help the revenue as it is distinguishable. Although the said Form No. 10 DA was not filed on or before the due date of furnishing the original return, the assessee is entitled to claim the deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act because this is a procedural omission and on this basis the AO/CPC could not have denied the deduction u/s.80 JJAA of the Printed from counselvise.com 5995_DEL_2025_Aakash Bhardwaj vs AO 5 | P a g e Act. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the coordinate Bench considering the fact, we deem it fit and proper to remit the issue to the file of AO/ CPC with the above observations for limited verification of quantification of allowable deduction u/s. 80JJAA of the Act. The assessee is also directed to produce the relevant document evidence before the AO/CPC. The appeal of the assessee is liable to be allowed for statistical purpose.” 4.2 On the other hand, Ld. DR has strongly relied on the orders of the lower authorities and has pointed out that since the mandatory condition of filing the audit report in Form 10DA by the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) was not fulfilled, the deduction u/s 80JJAA has rightly been disallowed by the lower authorities. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We note that the issue regarding filing of mandatory audit report for claiming deduction has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as several High Courts and co-ordinate Benches of the ITAT as discussed above. 5.1. Following the settled legal position on the issue, we are of the considered view that since the return was filed within the extended due date and the same was also revised within the extended due date in which the claim u/s 80JJAA was made and Form 10DA had also been filed, the CPC should have considered the same while processing the return and allowed the claim of deduction. Accordingly, we hold that the procedural omission of not filing of report before Printed from counselvise.com 5995_DEL_2025_Aakash Bhardwaj vs AO 6 | P a g e the due date of furnishing of original return would not result in denial of deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act. 6. In view of above, we deem it appropriate to remit the issue to the file of Ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer [for short, JAO] for limited verification and quantification of allowable deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act. 6.1 The assessee is also directed to produce the requisite documents before the AO for the purpose of verification. 7. The appeal of the assessee is, accordingly, allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 20.02.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (YOGESH KUMAR US) (RENU JAUHRI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 20.02.2026 Pooja Mittal, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "