AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM,
This appeal filed by the Revenue is against order dated 14.11.2025 of the Learned Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Coimbatore, [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)] arising out of assessment order dated 03.05.2024 passed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 pertaining to Assessment Year 2023-24. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:-
1.The CIT(A) erred in holding that deduction for earlier years can again be included in computing deduction for the current year, contrary to the statutory requirement that the deduction is allowable only on 'additional employee cost of the relevant previous year and is not a cumulative or carry-forward benefit.
2.The CIT(A) erred in relying on the assessee's past claims allowed in earlier years (AY 2021-22 and AY 2022-23) to justify the claim for AY 2023-24, whereas each assessment year is separate and independent and the assessee must satisfy the statutory conditions afresh.
3.The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the onus lies on the assessee to establish that the entire claim of ₹6,25,18,250 pertains strictly to 'additional employees' of the relevant previous year only, which the assessee failed to demonstrate.
4.The learned CIT(A) erred in allowing the assessee's claim without providing any meaningful or effective opportunity to the Assessing Officer to examine the additional evidences, explanations and year-wise break-up of the deduction claimed u/s 80JJAA. The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's written submissions and Form 10DA analysis suo motu, without calling for a remand report from the Assessing Officer, despite the fact that the issue involved verification of factual aspects such as incremental employee cost, year-wise eligibility and reconciliation of past year claims.
The only issue raised by the appellant revenue in this case is regarding the deletion of addition of Rs.6,25,18,000/- by the ld. CIT(A). As per brief factual matrix of the case, the assessee had filed its Return of Income on 28.10.2023. The ld. AO at CPC disallowed under section 143(1) an amount of Rs.6,25,18,000/- claimed under section 80JJA of the Act. The ld. AO had concluded that the amount of deduction claimed by the assessee is more than the amount declared in the Return of Income in form 10DA. The assessee had before the ld. CIT(A) had unequivocally demonstrated that there was no mismatch in the figures and that the amount claimed of Rs.6,25,18,000/- in the Return of Income was identical to those shown in form 10DA. The ld. CIT(A) after observing the said evidences concluded that no case for any addition was made out and proceeded to delete the addition.
We have heard rival submissions in the light of material placed on record. The ld. DR argued in favour of the order of ld. AO. It was contested that the ld. CIT(A) has considered additional evidences, not available before the AO, while giving the impugned relief and that therefore the matter deserves to be remitted back.
The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the same is not correct Reference was invited to observations of the ld. CIT(A) from pages-8 to 17 and particularly para-12 on page-17. It was stated that the ld. CIT(A) had not considered any new document/evidence and that his decision was based upon evidences already available on records and the Return of Income. Thus, it was stated that no intervention is required the impugned appellate order.
We have perused from the documents referred by the ld. Counsel for the assessee filed through its paper book as well as the appellate order that the ld. CIT(A) has not considered any additional evidences. The argument of the appellant revenue of violation of its right to natural justice are therefore unfounded. We have further noted that the relief accorded by the ld. CIT(A) is rightly based upon the material which was based upon records even before the ld. AO at CPC. We have noted the following observation of the ld.CIT(A) on page-17 of its order:_
“…12. From the records and documents filed, it is verified that The appellant's business is engaged in the manufacturing of textiles and home furnishings, eligible under section 80JJAA and audit report in Form No. 10DA dated 27.10.2023 certifies the deduction u/s 80JJAA at Rs.6,25,18,250/- The allegation of mismatch in the CPC order is incorrect on facts, since both amounts are identical as per form 10ID for the year under consideration. The appellant has also been consistently claiming and allowed deductions u/s 80JJAA in earlier assessment years, supported by Form No. 10DA reports for A.Y. 2021-22 (Rs.1.71Cr.) and A.Y. 2022-23 (Rs.6.16 Cr.).Hence, there is no inconsistency in the pattern of claims. The appellant's claim is supported by all statutory requirements, including proper filing of Form No. 10DA within the prescribed time under Rule 19AB.Accordingly, the disallowance made by CPC is unsustainable in law and on facts….”
Thus, we are of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and that the relief accorded is based upon true appreciation of facts and is in accordance with law. There is no need to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A) at this stage. We therefore confirm the impugned order and dismisses the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant revenue.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.