TIMBLE TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD,DELHI V. ACIT,CPC, BENGALURU

ITA 3357/DEL/2025

AI Insights

Timble Technologies Pvt. Ltd. appealed against the orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata, which confirmed the disallowance of a deduction claimed under section 80IAC of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The disallowance was initially made by the Assessing Officer due to the late filing of Form 10CCB, which supports the claim for the deduction. The Tribunal, referencing similar cases and the government's start-up recognition, ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing that technical lapses should not deny substantive legal benefits, particularly when they do not cause any detriment to the revenue.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 841412 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Appeal Filed On: 22-05-2025
• Other Referred Cases: ACIT vs. Green Dot Health Foods Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.8414/Del/2019)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: K. SAMPATH
• Keywords: Set aside; Principle of natural justice; Benefit of exemption; Procedural lapse

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3357/Del/2025 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2021-22) Timble Technologies Pvt. Ltd., B-5/73, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi-110029. PAN-AAXCS5397Q Vs. Assessing Officer, Income Tax Department, CPC, Bengaluru. (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.4057/Del/2025 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2022-23) Timble Technologies Pvt. Ltd., B-5/73, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi-110029. PAN-AAXCS5397Q Vs. DCIT, Circle-25(1), New Delhi-110002. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri K. Sampath, Adv. and Shri V. Rajkumar, Adv. Department by Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 26.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 23.02.2026 O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM: Both the appeals filed by the Assessee are against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), both dated 06.03.2025 and 11.04.2025 arising out of assessment orders dated 28.12.2022 and 19.06.2023 of Learned Assessing Officer, Central Processing Centre Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA Nos.3357 & 4057/Del/2025 Timble Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (CPC)/DCIT [hereinafter referred as ‘the Ld. AO’] for Assessment Years 2021-2022 and 2022-23 respectively. 2. Since, both the appeals of the assessee are having identical issues, therefore, they are adjudicated by a common order. First we take up the appeal for Assessment Year 2021-22 in ITA No.3357/Del/2025. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed ITR of net amount payable as Nil. The assesse had filed return of income on 25.02.2022 declaring total taxable income of Rs.2,52,740/- after claiming deduction of Rs.4,20,06,119/- u/s 80IAC of the Act. The assessee’s ITR was accompanied by Tax Audit Report u/s 44AB of the Act which was uploaded on the Departmental Portal on 19.01.2022. The return of income of assessee was taken up for processing by the CPC u/s 143(1) of the Act on 28.12.2022. The CPC omitted to take cognizance while processing the return and refused the rebate u/s 80IAC of the Act and created demand of Rs.60,67,357/-. Against the order dated 28.12.2022 of Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed vide order dated 06.03.2025. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant assessee filed the present appeal with the following grounds. “1 That the Learned Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of deduction of 4,20,06,119/- claimed under section 80-IAC of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 1.1 That the in the order passed, the Ld. Addl. CIT(A) has erred in incorrectly pointing out alleged discrepancies in Form 10CCB vis-à-vis the ITR & Tax Audit, ignoring that it was a case of deduction disallowed u/s 143(1), not filing of Startup registration details and not affording an opportunity to explain such discrepancies. 2. That the order passed by the Ld. Addl. CIT(A) is biased, prejudiced and against the Principles of Natural Justice as the belated filing of Form 10CCB was only a procedural lapse and could not be a ground for denying the substantive benefit of deduction under section 80-IAC of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA Nos.3357 & 4057/Del/2025 Timble Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT 2.1 That the Ld. Addl. CIT(A) has acted contrary to judicial discipline by disregarding binding precedents of Hon’ble Courts and the ITAT, where similar claims were allowed despite such technical/procedural lapses.” 5. The Ld. Authorized Representative for appellant assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of deduction of Rs.4,20,06,119/- claimed u/s 80IAC of the Act made by Ld. AO. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in incorrectly pointing out discrepancies in Form 10CCB and Tax Audit ignoring that the case was of deduction disallowed u/s 143(1) and not of filing startup registration details and not affording an opportunity to explain such discrepancies. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against one another, the cause of the former deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have a vested right injustice being done due to non-deliberate delay -167 ITR 471 at 473. The denial of the exemption is purely on technical grounds which cannot oust the benefit conferred by law. The First Appellate Authority failed to understand that the filling of Form 10CCB along with the return was simply a technical exercise. The delayed filling of the form was non-deliberate accidental and beyond the comprehension and control of the Assessee. Justice could not have been denied by way of refusing the benefit of exemption to the Appellant Company which admittedly is otherwise registered as start-up as per the recognition to it by the Government itself. The delay in filing form 10CCB has not caused any loss or detriment to the Revenue. On the contrary, the refusal of the exemption, causes the virtual collapse of the foundational base of the start-up. The refusal of the exemption on technical grounds by the CPC is in direct conflict with government policy and programme to provide vigorous impetus to start-ups in the country. The Appellant Authority has ignored the direct authority on this point of Delhi Tribunal (incidentally the Jurisdictional Tribunal) which was cited before him as ACIT vs. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA Nos.3357 & 4057/Del/2025 Timble Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Green Dot Health Foods Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.8414/Del/2019) dated 09.02.2023, on arbitrary anomalous and specious considerations. 6. The Ld. Authorized Representative for Department submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has referred to factual errors. 7. From examination of record in the light of the aforesaid rival contention, it is crystal clear that Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 06.03.2025 upheld the disallowance of deduction of Rs.4,20,06,119/- u/s 80IAC of the Act. 7.1 The assessee had filed its return of income on 25.02.2022 declaring total income Rs.2,52,740/- after claiming deduction u/s 80IAC of the Act, a sum of Rs.4,20,06,119/-. ITR of assessee as accompanied by Tax Audit Report u/s 44AB of the Act and uploaded on the Departmental Portal on 19.01.2022. The specified Audit Report in Form 10CCB in support of claim u/s 80IAC dated 18.01.2022 was uploaded on 22.11.2022. The return of assessee was taken up for processing by the CPC u/s. 143(1) of the Act on 28.12.2022. 7.2 Ld. CIT(A) failed to understand that the filling of Form 10CCB along with the return was simply a technical exercise. The delayed filling of the form was non- deliberate accidental and beyond the comprehension and control of the Assessee. Justice could not have been denied by way of refusing the benefit of exemption to the Appellant Company which admittedly is otherwise registered as start-up as per the recognition to it by the Government itself. The delay in filing form 10CCB has not caused any loss or detriment to the Revenue. On the contrary, the refusal of the exemption, causes the virtual collapse of the foundational base of the start-up. The refusal of the exemption on technical grounds by the CPC is in direct conflict with Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA Nos.3357 & 4057/Del/2025 Timble Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT government policy and programme to provide vigorous impetus to start-ups in the country. 7.3 A Co-ordinate Bench in ACIT vs. Green Dot Health Foods Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.8414/Del/2019) dated 09.02.2023 has held as under:- “7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The issue in the present ground is about the denial of claim of deduction u/s 80IC of the Act by AO but allowing the claim of the assessee by CIT(A). The only reason for denying the claim of deduction u/s 80IC of the Act by AO was that the Form 10CCB was uploaded by the assessee on the website of the Income-tax Department on 10.11.2017 whereas the return of income was filed on 24.10.2017 and the return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 30.10.2018. We find that CIT(A) while deciding the issue in favour of the assessee has given the finding that though there was delay in upholding Form 10CCB but the same was uploaded before the return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. For allowing the ground of assessee, CIT(A) had relied on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Contimeters Electricals (P) Ltd. [2009] 178 Taxman 422 (Delhi) and other decisions. We find that Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. G.M.Knitting Industries (P) Ltd. (2017) 71 taxmann.com 35 (SC) has held even though Form 10CCB was not filed along with the return of income but when the same was filed before the final order of assessment was made, assessee was entitled to claim deduction. Before us, Revenue has not pointed to any contrary binding decision in its support nor has pointed to any fallacy in the findings of CIT(A). We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) and thus the ground of Revenue is dismissed.” 8. In the above material facts and well settled principle of law, it is held that the action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80IAC by Ld. AO being illegal is set aside. Grounds of appeal Nos. 1 to 2.1 are accepted. ITA No.4057/Del/2025 for Assessment Year 2022023 9. Since the facts of this case are identical to the facts of ITA No.3357/Del/2025 for Assessment Year 2021-22 above except the amount of deduction, therefore, by following the observations made therein which are mutatis mutandis applied in this Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA Nos.3357 & 4057/Del/2025 Timble Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT year also, and accordingly, the appeal of the assessee for this year 2022-23 in ITA No.4057/Del/2025 is allowed. 10. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order is pronounced in the Open Court 23.02.2026. Sd/- Sd/- -/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (VIMAL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 23.02.2026 *PK, Sr. Ps* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "