2025 (2) TMI 918 - AT - Income Tax

Appellate Tribunal Rules for 22% Tax Rate Under Section 115BAA; Overturns Higher Rate Due to Procedural Errors.

M/s. Monads Furniture Systems Private Limited Versus Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward-4 (1) Chennai.

The Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, determining that their income should be taxed at 22% under section 115BAA of the Income Tax Act, ... Ex-parte order - non-compliance to the hearing notices issued - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) proceeded to pass impugned order on 03.12.2024 ex-parte, even before the time for furnishing response by the assessee has not expired. Moreover, we find notices of hearing sent from Office of the First Appellate Authority was not sent to e-mail ID shown in Form No.35. Therefore, there was non-compliance to the hearing notices issued from the Office of First Appellate Authority, which had resulted in ex-parte order. Denial of concessional rate of tax at 22% as per provisions of section 115BAA - delay in filing Form 10-IC - HELD THAT:- CBDT in its Circular No.6 of 2022 dated 17.03.2022 had stated that delay in filing Form No.10-IC, as per Rule 21AE of the Rules for the previous year relevant to AY 2020-21 is condoned in cases where following conditions are satisfied:- i) The return of income for AY 2020-21 has been filed on or before the due date specified u/s. 139(1) of the Act; ii) The assessee company has opted for taxation u/s/115BAA of the Act in (e) of ‘Filing Status’ in Part A-‘GEN’ of the Form of Return of Income ITR-6; and iii) Form 10-IC is filed electronically on or before 30.06.2022 or 3 months from the end of the month in which this Circular is issued, whichever is later.” As assessee had satisfied all the aforesaid three conditions mentioned in the Board’s Circular No.6 of 2022 dated 17.03.2022. In view of the assessee satisfying all the three conditions mentioned above, delay in filing Form 10-IC stands condoned and accordingly, the assessee would be entitled to be taxed at concessional rate of tax at 22% as per provisions of section 115BAA - Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether the appellate authority's ex parte disposal was valid where hearing notices were issued to an e-mail address different from that furnished in Form No.35 and an impugned order was passed before the deadline for response expired. 2. Whether delay in filing Form No.10-IC for assessment year 2020-21 precludes application of concessional tax rate under section 115BAA, or whether such delay is condoned by administrative instruction (CBDT Circular No.6/2022) when prescribed conditions are satisfied. 3. Whether any other consequences (including on rectification orders and interest under section 244A) arise from the above findings. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 1: Validity of ex parte disposal where notices were sent to incorrect e-mail and order passed before expiry of response period Legal framework: Principles of natural justice require service of notice in conformity with procedure and a reasonable opportunity to be heard before an adverse order is passed; appellate authority must comply with its own notice requirements and allow the time prescribed in the notice for response. Precedent Treatment: No judicial precedents were cited or relied upon in the judgment; determination is made on principles of procedural fairness and record evidence of notice delivery. Interpretation and reasoning: The record established that the appellate office issued two hearing notices (dated 22.11.2024 and 27.11.2024) to an e-mail ID different from that shown in Form No.35. The second notice fixed a response deadline of 03.12.2024, but the appellate authority passed the ex parte order on 03.12.2024 - i.e., before the expiry of the response period - and the notices were not sent to the e-mail reflected in the appellant's filed documents. These facts demonstrate both misdirection of communication and premature adjudication. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - procedural non-compliance (misdirected notice and premature passing of order) vitiates the ex parte disposal; this is essential to the decision to set aside the first appellate order. No separate obiter commentary on ancillary procedural doctrines. Conclusion: The ex parte order of the first appellate authority is procedurally invalid on account of non-compliance with notice requirements (sending to incorrect e-mail) and issuance of the impugned order before the expiration of the time allowed for response; remittance or setting aside was warranted (the Tribunal set aside/allowed appeal on that basis). ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 2: Applicability of concessional rate under section 115BAA where Form No.10-IC was filed late and CBDT Circular No.6/2022 is invoked for condonation Legal framework: Section 115BAA prescribes concessional taxation at 22% for eligible domestic companies subject to conditions; Rule 21AE and Form No.10-IC prescribe the procedural requirement of filing the declaration within the specified due date. Administrative guidance (CBDT Circular No.6/2022 dated 17.03.2022) addresses condonation of delay in filing Form No.10-IC for AY 2020-21 where specific conditions are satisfied. Precedent Treatment: No judicial authority was cited to accept or reject the Circular; the Tribunal applied the Circular as a binding administrative pronouncement relevant to the facts before it. Interpretation and reasoning: The Circular sets out three cumulative conditions for condonation: (i) return of income for AY 2020-21 filed on or before the due date under section 139(1); (ii) the company opted for taxation under section 115BAA in the ITR-6 (Filing Status); and (iii) Form No.10-IC filed electronically on or before 30.06.2022 (or three months from the end of the month in which the Circular is issued, whichever is later). The admitted facts showed that the assessee satisfied all three conditions: timely ITR filing, election shown in ITR-6, and Form 10-IC filed within the extended period. In these circumstances the Tribunal found the delay condoned by the Circular and concluded that the conditions for section 115BAA were effectively met. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where the specified conditions in CBDT Circular No.6/2022 are satisfied, delay in filing Form No.10-IC for AY 2020-21 is condoned and the concessional tax regime under section 115BAA at 22% applies. This formed the operative basis for directing taxation at 22% instead of higher rates applied earlier. Conclusion: The assessee, having met the three conditions in the Circular, was entitled to be taxed at the concessional rate of 22% under section 115BAA; prior intimation and appellate treatment taxing at higher rates were set aside to the extent inconsistent with this entitlement. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 3: Consequences on rectification, demand and interest (including section 244A) Legal framework: Rectification or revision and calculation of refunds/demands flow from correct application of substantive tax provisions; interest under section 244A pertains to delay in refund and is assessable in light of the correct tax computation. Precedent Treatment: No separate authorities were cited regarding rectification or interest; the Tribunal's determination on tax rate necessarily impacts any rectification or demand that arose from the incorrect tax computation. Interpretation and reasoning: The appellant contended that rectification orders taxing at higher rates and resulting demands/refund reductions were void for want of opportunity and incorrect application of law. The Tribunal's finding that the appellant was entitled to taxation at 22% implies that the earlier intimation and related rectification/demand must be adjusted to reflect the correct rate. The appeal succeeded on merits; the judgment does not elaborate a separate adjudication on the quantum of interest under section 244A, but the direction to apply section 115BAA necessarily affects refund/demand calculations and attendant interest claims. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - correction of tax rate to 22% requires corresponding rectification of demands/refunds; treatment of interest under section 244A is consequential and was not independently decided beyond noting that the appellant had raised the issue and that the substantive tax computation was altered. The point on interest remains consequential rather than a separately adjudicated ratio. Conclusion: Orders assessing tax at higher rates and resulting demands/refund adjustments are to be rectified in accordance with the Tribunal's finding that section 115BAA at 22% applies; any interest or refund consequences follow from this determination and must be given effect to in implementation of the decision.