2022 (12) TMI 504 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction u/s.80JJAA - Denial of deduction as assessee has not filed audit report, as required under the provisions of section 44AB of the Act, in Form No.10DA - Debatable issue - Whether filing of audit report in Form No.10DA is a pre-condition for claiming deduction u/s.80JJAA? - HELD THAT - We find that an identical issue had been considered by the Tribunal in assessee s own case for assessment year 2019- 20 2022 (7) TMI 1356 - ITAT CHENNAI where under identical set of facts, it was held that the AO cannot make any adjustments towards deduction claimed u/s. 80JJAA of the Act, in the intimation issued u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Act, because such issue is highly debatable which can be resolved by deliberation, including verification of necessary documents. We are of the considered view that the AO has erred in disallowing deduction claimed u/s. 80JJAA of the Act, while processing return of income u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Act, and thus, we direct the AO to delete the additions made towards disallowance u/s. 80JJAA of the Act. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of deduction u/s 80JJAA by CPC under section 143(1)(a)(ii)
2. Validity of adjustments made by CPC under section 143(1)(a)(ii)
3. Requirement of audit report in Form No.10DA for claiming deduction u/s 80JJAA
4. Applicability of deduction u/s 80JJAA for subsequent years
5. Legal precedents supporting deduction u/s 80JJAA
6. Requirement of audit report for claiming deduction u/s 80JJAA
7. Tribunal's jurisdiction to resolve debatable issues in intimation u/s 143(1)

Analysis:

1. The appeal challenged the denial of deduction u/s 80JJAA by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] based on adjustments made by the Central Processing Centre (CPC) under section 143(1)(a)(ii). The appellant contended that the denial of deduction was illegal and ultra vires the Central Processing of Returns Scheme, 2011, as CPC lacks authority to make such adjustments.

2. The appellant argued that the denial of deduction u/s 80JJAA was unjustified as the audit report requirements were met in the previous assessment year, and the conditions for claiming the deduction were not applicable for subsequent years. Legal precedents, including decisions from various High Courts and the Supreme Court, supported the appellant's position that the deduction should not be denied based on procedural lapses.

3. The Tribunal considered the issue of the requirement of an audit report in Form No.10DA for claiming deduction u/s 80JJAA. The Tribunal noted that the AO erred in disallowing the deduction solely based on the non-filing of the audit report, as the issue was debatable and required deliberation, including verification of necessary documents.

4. The Tribunal referred to its previous decision in the appellant's own case for the assessment year 2019-20, where a similar issue was resolved in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal reiterated that debatable issues, such as the eligibility for deduction u/s 80JJAA, should not be adjusted in the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the AO to delete the additions made towards the disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80JJAA. The decision was based on the principle that debatable issues should not be resolved through adjustments in the intimation under section 143(1), emphasizing the need for deliberation and verification of documents in such cases.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment in this case clarified the procedural and substantive requirements for claiming deductions under section 80JJAA, emphasizing the importance of thorough consideration and verification of relevant documents in determining the eligibility for such deductions.