Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(2), Bangalore. ......Respondent. Assessee By: Smt. Shreya Loyalka, C.A. Revenue By: Shri B.K. Panda, CIT (D.R) Date of Hearing : 17.12.2020. Date of Pronouncement : 07.01.2021. ORDER PER SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, AM : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bangalore dt.24.01.2018. 1.1 In this appeal, the first issue is with regard to disallowance of deduction of claim under Section 80JJAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). 2 ITA No.1210/Bang/2018 2. The facts of the issue are that during the A.Y. 201011, the assessee claimed a deduction u/s. 80JJAA of the Act amounting to Rs.23,25,88,302 in respect of salary paid to new regular workmen. However, while computing the taxable income, the Assessing Officer has denied the entire claim u/s. 80JJAA on account of following reasons : HTSL is not an industrial undertaking; HTSL is not in the business of manufacturing or production of article or thing and is a service provider; HTSL does not pay wages to its employees; and HTSL does not employ any workmen within the definition of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee was specifically asked to produce the appointment letters of the employees as well as the hierarchy of the employees and the management. However, according to the CIT(A), these details were not produced despite of being given repeated opportunities and time of more than 5 months. The CIT(A) observed that the above documents could only have shown as to whether these employees were working in any supervisory capacity or not. On perusal of the designation of these employees, the CIT(A) found that the same include Principal Consultants, Senior Programmer, Lead 3 ITA No.1210/Bang/2018 Consultants, Team Leader, Technical Leader, Senior Engineer, Senior Sourcing Engineer, Senior Consultant, Engineer, Technology Specialist etc. and the salaries paid to several of these employees exceeded Rs.10,00,000/. According to the CIT(A), only hierarchy chart of these employees could have shown as to which employees is reporting to which other employee and there is always a system of annual performance appraisal report in the companies and the supervisory authority records such appraisal of the employees reporting to him. In absence of details provided by the assessee, the CIT(A) was of the view that it is not possible to determine as to whether all these 556 employees are working in supervisory capacity or not. The CIT(A) was of the view that the onus was on the assessee to show that these employees were not working in any supervisory capacity, however the assessee had failed to discharge this onus. Therefore, according to the CIT(A), these employees cannot be considered to be satisfying the condition of being considered as workmen. In view of above also, the entire claim of the assessee needs to be rejected. 3.1 In addition to above, the CIT(A) noticed that as per Form No.10DA the assessee had claimed deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act in relation to new regular workmen employed during FY 200708 and in relation to which deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act was claimed for first time during A Y 200809. Before the CIT(A) , the assessee had claimed that it is eligible for the third installment of 4 ITA No.1210/Bang/2018 such deduction @30% on an amount of Rs.26,39,22,189/ being the wages paid to these workers. Here, the CIT(A) mentioned that Section 80JJAA of the Act allows deduction to be claimed at the rate of 30% of the additional wages for three assessment years including the assessment year related to the previous year in whic