INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Assessment Year: 2022-23)

DCIT, Vs. A. P. Securitas Pvt. Ltd, Central Circle-14, 10-DDA, Commercial Complex, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

PAN: AAACA1315R Assessee by : Shri Gaurav Jain, Adv Shri Tarun Chanana, Adv Revenue by: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR Date of Hearing 04/11/2025 Date of pronouncement 21/01/2026 O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, J.M.

1. The application for condonation of delay of 38 days in filing of appeal and appeal are against the order dated 30.12.2024 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-26, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)’, in short] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) arising out of assessment order dated 26.07.2023 by the ld AO/ Deputy Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore u/s 143(1) of the Act for AY 2022-23.

2. The ld Departmental Representative submitted that there is delay of 38 days in filing of appeal due to departmental proceedings. The explanation for condonation of delay of 38 days in filing does not smack of malafide as appellant has not gain anything by not filing of appeal within period of limitation. Therefore, delay of 38 days in filing of appeal is condoned.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in business of providing security services, facility management services, HR outsourcing etc. The assessee filed its return of income on 29.12.2022 declaring income of Rs. 1,06,68,311/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act with an adjustment of income to the tune of Rs. 18,13,01,752/-. The only ground being disallowance was on account of claim of deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act by ld AO vide order dated 26.07.2023. Against the order dated 26.07.2023 of ld AO, the assessee filed appeal before the ld CIT(A) which was partly allowed vide order dated 30.12.2024.

4. Being aggrieved the Department of Revenue preferred present appeal by raised following grounds:-

“1. Whether Ld. CTT(A) is correct in allowing deduction u/s 80JJA when the ITR was not filed within the time limit prescribed u/s 80AC(ii)

r.w.s. 139(1) of the Act?

2. Whether ITR filed w/s 139(4) can be considered as ITR filed u/s

139(1) of the Act.

3. Whether the use of word "shall" in Section 80AC(ii) merely directory or it should be read as mandatory.

4. Whether allowing a deduction of certain income, falling in bending "C-Deductions in respect of certain incomes” in chapter VIA, for an ITR filed beyond the time limit prescribed/s will not tantamount to going beyond the scope of what the Parliament has provided.

5.(a) The order of the Ld. CIT (A) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts.”

5. The ld Departmental Representative submitted

1. Statutory Mandate of Section 80AC(ii)

 Section 80AC(ii), as substituted by the Finance Act, 2018 w.e.f.

A.Y. 2018-19, provides in unequivocal terms that "no deduction under any provision of this Chapter shall be allowed unless the return of income is furnished by the assessee on or before the due date specified under sub-section (1) of Section 139."

 The statutory language is clear, mandatory, and admits of no dilution. The Legislature, in its wisdom, consciously replaced the earlier provision (restricting its scope to limited sections) and made the condition applicable to all deductions under Chapter VIA, including Section 80JJAA.

 Therefore, compliance with the due date prescribed under Section 139(1) is a condition precedent for claiming deduction. Filing the return within the extended time permitted u/s 139(4)

cannot cure this statutory default.

2. Binding Precedent - Pr. CIT v. Wipro Ltd. (SC)

 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pr. CIT v. Wipro Ltd. [2022] 446 ITR 1 (SC) has unequivocally held that when the statute requires return to be filed within the due date u/s 139(1) as a condition for claiming deduction, such requirement is mandatory.

 Filing