JUBILANT FOODWORKS LIMITED,NOIDA V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NOIDA

ITA 184/DEL/2025

AI Insights

Jubilant Food Works Limited appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, which partly allowed their appeal against the intimation order from the Centralized Processing Center (CPC) denying a deduction under section 80JJAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The deduction claimed was INR 13,49,58,036, which was disallowed by the CPC in the intimation order dated July 29, 2023. The assessee argued that the Form 10DA, required for claiming the deduction, was filed with the revised return and that the requirement to furnish this form was directory, not mandatory. The Tribunal, referencing several precedents, including decisions from the Supreme Court, found in favor of the assessee, noting that the Form 10DA was part of the record during the assessment and thus the deduction should not have been denied.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 714412 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2022-2023
• Other Referred Cases: Sai Computers Ltd v. Assistant Director of Income Tax, Commissioner of Income-Tax, Maharashtra v. G.M. Knitting Industries (P) Ltd, IIFL Samasta Finance Limited v. DCIT, Tarasafe International (P) Ltd. v. Deputy Director of Income -Tax CPC, Sunrise Industries (India) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT, Shri Bhagawnji Harish v. ITO, Akuntha Projects (P) Ltd. v. Deputy Director -CPC, M/s Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Vs. State of U.P. & Another, PCIT v. Wipro Ltd, Solapur dist MSK Samiti H Master t and NT v ITO Ward no 2, M/s Rushi Sanskruti Vividoddeshagal v. The DCIT CPC Bangalore
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Tax Rules, 1962
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JITENDER SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: K M GUPTA; WAY OF TRANSFER
• Keywords: Set aside; Revised return; Depreciation; Additional depreciation
• Section: 139(5)

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”, DELHI BEFORE SH. M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.184/DEL/2025 Assessment Year: 2022-23 Jubilant Food works Limited Plot No. 1A sector 16 A Gautam Buddha Nagar Uttar Pradesh 201301 PAN No. AABCD 1821 C Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 5 (1) (1), Noida (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. K M Gupta, Advocate Ms. Shruti Khimata, CA Respondent by Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT DR Date of hearing: 22/07/2025 Date of Pronouncement: 06/08/2025 ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal Addl/JCIT (A) -1 Coimbatore [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] vide order dated 18.11.2024 pertaining to A.Y. 2022-23 arising out the assessment order dated 24-08-2023 under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (in short ‘the Act’). Printed from counselvise.com 2 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds in appeal: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the impugned intimation order issued by the Ld. CPC dated July 29, 2023, is erroneous and bad in law as the adjustment was made to the income of the Appellant and is liable to be deleted. 2. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)/Ld. CPC grossly erred in disallowing deduction of INR 13,49,58,036 under section 80JJAA of the Act claimed by the Appellant without appreciating the Appellant has duly filed Form 10DA in compliance with Rule 19AB of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 2.1. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in disallowing deduction under section 80JJAA of the Act by incorrectly placing reliance on the provisions of Section 80AC of the Act which is not applicable on the facts of the case. 3-On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. CIT(A)/Ld. CPC grossly erred in charging interest of INR 10,92,887 under sections 234C of the Act. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify, or withdraw all or any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal as may be considered necessary at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. The above grounds are without prejudice to each another. Printed from counselvise.com 3 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on 30-11-2022 declaring total income of Rs.5,59,32,66,057/-. Subsequently the assessee filed revised return of income u/s 139(5) of the Act on 28-12- 2022 declaring the same income. The assessee received an intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 29-07-2023 wherein the CPC denied the deduction under section 80 JJAA of the Act amount to Rs. 13,49,58,036/-. Aggrieved the order of the CPC the assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide order dated 18-11-2024 partly allowed the appeal. Being aggrieved the order from the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal. 4. The Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that assessee had claimed the deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act which was duly reported in the tax audit report filed for the A.Y.2022-23. The assessee did not file the Form 10DA with the original return of income but filed with the revised return of income. He also submitted that the requirement of furnishing auditors report in the Form 10DA for the deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act is a directory in nature and therefore merely because Form 10D A was filed after filing the original return of income cannot be the ground for denial of deduction entitled to the assessee. The assessee filed the revised return of income on 28-12-2022 and Printed from counselvise.com 4 return of income was processed by the CPC on 29-03-2023 after submitting the Form no. 10DA. He further submitted that the CPC has wrongly denied the deduction. For this proposition the ld. AR referred to the decision rendered by the co-ordinate Bench in the case of Sai Computers Ltd v. Assistant Director of Income Tax. In this case the Co-ordinate Bench held as under: “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 section 80JJAA solely reasons of belated filing of the prescribed form is not justified. Consequently, the action of the CIT(A) is set aside and the Assessing Printed from counselvise.com 5 Officer is directed to grant relief by way of deduction as claimed. Ground No. 1 is accordingly allowed. 5. In the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax, Maharashtra v. G.M. Knitting Industries (P) Ltd. {2016} 71 Taxmann.com 35 (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. 6. Reliance has placed on the following decisions: (i) IIFL Samasta Finance Limited v. DCIT ITA No. 18/BANG/2025 in this case the Hon’ble Bangalore ITAT bench held as under : 9.5 Now coming to the issue whether requirement of furnishing the report of an Accountant in form 10DA 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 Printed from counselvise.com 6 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 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. Printed from counselvise.com 7 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.\" 2. 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.\" 9.6 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 Printed from counselvise.com 8 denied the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80JJAA of the Act. (ii) Tarasafe International (P) Ltd. v. Deputy Director of Income -Tax CPC{2024}.com51 (Kolkata)- trib (iii) Sunrise Industries (India) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT ITA No. 282 /Ahd/ 2025 (iv) Shri Bhagawnji Harish v. ITO ITA No. 1315 Bang /2024 (v) Akuntha Projects (P) Ltd. v. Deputy Director -CPC [2024] 162 taxmann.com 861 ( Ahmedabad-Trib) 7. The Ld. DR submitted that the filing the certificate on Form 10 DA is a mandatory requirement for the deduction of the 80 JJAA of the Act. The assessee has failed to file the Form 10DA with in the due date and the revised return filed by the assessee was treated in the response to the notice dated 14-12-2022. He further submitted that the word shall would be mandatory while the world would be directory. 8. In the written submission the Ld. DR reproduced the section 80JJAA of the Act and the interpretation of word “shall” as under: “…. [80JJA. Deduction in respect of employment of new employees- Printed from counselvise.com 9 (1) Where the gross total income of an assessee to whom section 44B applies, includes any profits and gains derived from business, there shall, subject to the conditions specified in sub-section (2), be allowed a deduction of an amount equal to thirty per cent. Of additional employee cost incurred in the course of such business in the previous year, for three assessment years including the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such employment is provided. (2) No deduction under sub-section (1) shall be allowed (a) if the business is formed by splitting up, or the reconstruction, of an existing business: Provided that nothing contained in this clause shall apply in respect of a business which is formed as a result of re-establishment, reconstruction or revival by the assessee of the business in the circumstances and within the period specified in section 33B; (b) if the business is acquired by the assessee by way of transfer from any other person or as a result of any business reorganization; (c) unless the assessee furnishes the report of the accountant, as defined in the Explanation below sub- section (2) of section 288before the specified date referred to in section 44AB, giving such particulars in the report as may be prescribed... (C). Interpretation of word \"Shall\" in a statute (as mentioned in Section 80JJAA)- Printed from counselvise.com 10 The word \"shall\" has been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various case laws in the sense that it as mandatory provision. Crawford on Statutory Construction' has specifically stated that language of the provision is not the sole criteria; but the Courts should consider its nature, design and the consequences which could flow from construing it one way or the other. The word 'shall' would be mandatory while the word 'may' would be directory. Consequences of non-compliance would also be a relevant consideration. The word 'shall' raises a presumption that the particular provision is imperative but this prima facie inference may be rebutted by other considerations such as object and scope of the enactment and the consequences flowing from such construction. Where a statute imposes a public duty and proceeds to lay down the manner and timeframe within which the duty shall be performed, the injustice or inconvenience resulting from a rigid adherence to the statutory prescriptions may not be a relevant factor in holding such prescription to be only directory. 9. The Ld. DR also relied the followings Judgements: 1. In the case of M/s Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Vs. State of U.P. & Another, the Hon’ble Supreme Court Held that “If object of the enactment will be defeated by holding the same directory, it will be constructed as mandatory, whereas if by holding it mandatory, serious general inconvenience will be created to innocent persons without very much furthering the object of enactment, the same will be constructed as directory . .. Thus the use of the words ‘as nearly as may be ‘in contrast to the words’ at least’ will prima facie indicate a directory, requirement negative words a mandatory requirement Printed from counselvise.com 11 ‘may’ a directory requirement and shall a mandatory requirement” 2. PCIT v. Wipro Ltd. {Civil Appeal No. 1449 of 2022} 3. Solapur dist MSK Samiti H Master t and NT v ITO Ward no 2 ITA No. 804/Pun /2023 4. In the case of M/s Rushi Sanskruti Vividoddeshagal v. The DCIT CPC Bangalore held as under: 5. Para 8…. \"The provisions of section 80AC(ii) make it clear that any deduction that is claimed under Part C of Chapter VIA would be admissible only if the return of income in that case were filed within the prescribed due date. Thus, no claim under any of the provisions of Part C of Chapter VIA would be admissible in the case of a belated return. There is no dispute on this position. The date of filing of a return of income would be apparent on the face of return and upon a perusal thereof, it would be clear as to whether the return is a valid return, having been filed within the statutory time limit, or a belated one. This is mechanical exercise and one that can be carried out by the CPC, very much within the scope of section 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act.\" 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, Printed from counselvise.com 12 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 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. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for the statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 06.08.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (M. BALAGANESH) (SUDHIR KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Neha, Sr. PS Date:06.08.2025 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) ` 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Printed from counselvise.com 13 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) ` 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "