Deduction u/s 80IAC – Whether Delay in Filing Form 10CCB is Fatal?

 

Scope of Amendment to Section 80IA(7) – ITAT Delhi

:FIVD India Consulting Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Gurgaon

ITA No. 3877/Del/2025 | Order dated 28 November 2025 | AY 2023-24

 

I. Core Issue:-The central question before the Tribunal was whether a start-up claiming deduction under section 80IAC could be denied the benefit solely because Form 10CCB was not filed before the “specified date” referred to in section 44AB, although:

 

the audit was completed on time,

Form 10CCB was duly signed before the specified date, and

the form was uploaded before completion of assessment.

 

The CPC and CIT(A) rejected the claim on the ground that the audit report was not furnished by 31 October 2023, the “specified date” under section 44AB for AY 2023-24.

 

II. Statutory Framework

1. Deduction u/s 80IAC

Eligible start-ups must satisfy conditions in:

                •              Section 80IAC(1),

                •              Section 80IAC(3), and

                •              Section 80IAC(4).

 

2. Mandatory Audit Requirement – Section 80IA(7)

 

Post–Finance Act 2020, an assessee must:

get accounts audited before the specified date u/s 44AB, and

furnish the audit report by that date in the prescribed form (Form 10CCB).

 

3. Nature of Amendment (FA 2020)

The 2020 amendment:

shifted the timeline for filing the audit report (from “along with return” to “before specified date”),

but did not alter the substantive requirement that an audit report must exist and be valid.

 

Whether failure to upload the report before the specified date is substantive (fatal) or procedural (curable) was the heart of litigation.

 

III. Facts Considered by the Tribunal

Return filed on 30.11.2023, claiming ₹18.57 cr deduction u/s 80IAC.

Accounts were duly audited; Form 10CCB was signed on 31.10.2023.

Uploading was delayed due to technical reasons; finally uploaded on 13.12.2023.

CPC denied deduction under section 143(1) citing late filing.

CIT(A) upheld the denial.

 

Assessee argued that filing Form 10CCB before assessment is a procedural requirement; the Department argued that post-amendment, timely furnishing before the specified date is mandatory.

 

IV. Tribunal’s Analysis

1. Audit was completed on time

The Tribunal found that:

the audit was concluded, and

Form 10CCB was duly signed before the specified date.

 

Thus, the substantive condition of audit was fully satisfied.

 

2. Delay in e-filing is procedural

The Tribunal held that Filing the report before the specified date is procedural.

Uploading a statutory report after the specified date but before completion of assessment does not defeat the claim.

 

3. Reference to Supreme Court Principles

Though section 80IA(7) has been amended, the Tribunal held that SC jurisprudence continues to apply:

Substantive compliance by completing the audit is essential.

Procedural compliance (timing of filing) can be condoned as long as the assessment is still open.

 

4. Argument of the Department rejected

The Revenue’s argument that the 2020 amendment made the timeline mandatory was rejected:

The amendment only changed when the report must be furnished.

It did not convert the requirement into a condition precedent disallowing deduction irreversibly if filing was late.

 

5. Filing before assessment is sufficient compliance

 

The Tribunal noted that once the audit report exists and is filed before assessment, the purpose of the statute is met.

 

V. Final Decision

1. Deduction cannot be denied merely due to delay

 

The Tribunal held that the delayed uploading of Form 10CCB does not bar deduction u/s 80IAC.

 

2. Matter remanded to AO

Since this was the first year of claim, the AO had not examined:

the eligibility criteria under section 80IAC, and

the correctness of computation.

 

Matter was restored to AO to verify the merits.

 

3. Claim to be allowed if other conditions are met

The AO must grant the deduction if the assessee satisfies the substantive conditions of section 80IAC.

 

Substantial compliance vs procedural compliance

 

Case Law Cited Before the Tribunal

A. Cases Relied Upon by the Assessee

(dealing with the principle that delay in filing an audit report is procedural)

                •              CIT v. Gupta Fabs (274 ITR 620 – P&H)

                •              CIT v. Contimeters Electrical Pvt. Ltd. (317 ITR 249 – Delhi)

                •              Sanjay Kukreja v. ACIT, ITA No. 652/Del/2023 (Delhi ITAT)

                •              Kumaon Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT, ITA No. 39/Del/2024 (Delhi ITAT)

                •              Desai Infra Projects (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (234 TTJ 879 – Pune)

 

These cases emphasise “substantial compliance” and treat delayed filing as curable.

 

B. Cases Relied Upon by the Department

(Arguing that the amended timeline is mandatory)

                •              CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (312 ITR 306 – SC)

                •              Kollam District Co-operative Bank v. CIT (347 ITR 480 – SC)

                •              CIT v. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd. (367 ITR 466 – SC)

 

The Revenue’s position was that post-2020, the statutory wording “by that date” is mandatory.

The Tribunal declined to accept this interpretation.

AI GENERATED PRECAUTIONS TO BE TAKEN BY PROFESSIONALS — SUMMARY

  1. Complete audit and sign Form 10CCB before the specified date.

  2. Upload Form 10CCB well within the due date; avoid last-minute filing.

  3. Maintain evidence of any portal or technical glitches.

  4. Verify successful filing by checking ARN in the portal.

  5. Upload Form 10CCB again through e-proceedings during assessment if needed.

  6. Keep documentation proving substantial compliance (audit completion on time).

  7. Ensure clients understand statutory timelines after FA 2020.

  8. Link 80IAC claim correctly with the audit report while filing the ITR.

  9. Prepare full eligibility documentation for first-year 80IAC claims.