2025 (9) TMI 946 - AT - Income Tax

Option under Form 10-IC to adopt section 115BAA is irrevocable but invalid if statutory conditions like section 115JAA(8) fail

ITAT held that once the taxpayer files Form 10-IC to opt into section 115BAA the option cannot be withdrawn for the same or subsequent years, but the ... Taxation u/s 115BA/115BAA - option to opt out excercised u/s 115BAA once option exercised - low tax benefit under new regime - whether after filing Form 10-IC opting the new tax regime under the provisions of Section 115BAA, can the assessee have any option to withdraw the same? - Whether the conditions prescribe in sub-section (2) of Section 115BAA of the Act, are violated by the assessee or unbale to satisfy the same, in that case, the option exercised by the assessee by filing of Form 10-IC would become superfluous, as if the option had not been exercised for the year under consideration or subsequent assessment year? HELD THAT:- On perusal of the aforesaid provisions of Section 115BAA of the Act, it emanates that such provisions are introduced for the benefit of the assessee and the same are further tagged riders / conditions to be fulfilled by the assessee to claim low tax benefit under new regime. In the present case, according to the proviso to section 115BAA, though the assessee does not have any entitlement to opt out from option once exercised for any previous year or subsequent year, therefore our answer to (Qi) is “NO”. However, in terms proviso to sub-section (1) r.w. sub-section (2) of Section 115BAA, there are certain conditions imposed on the assessee which needs to be fulfilled before claiming of benefits of low tax regime. However, since the assessee while filing return had opted out from the aforesaid option and have also claimed MAT Credit deductions u/s 115JAA, which are not permissible under the new tax regime, therefore, it can be construed that the assessee had not fulfilled pre requisite condition to avail benefit of new tax regime and accordingly, the same would be treated as if option had not been exercised by the assessee in the relevant assessment year or in subsequent years, accordingly we answer in affirmative. In present case, as the assessee who does not have option to opt out once option exercised but since had not fulfilled the condition mandatory as per sub section (2) to Section 115BAA of the Act as well as provisions of Section 115JAA(8) which debars the claim of MAT credit, thus, the option once exercised u/s. 115BAA of the Act by filing of Form 10-IC would be construed as invalidated. Thus, we found force in the contentions raised by the assessee, thus we upheld the same. Since the assessee had claimed MAT credit u/s. 115JAA of the Act which at no occasion was verified by the Ld AO, the same needs verification from records, accordingly, the same has been restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication with directions to allow the assessee to compute its tax liability under old regime to allow legitimate claim of MAT credit therein. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether an assessee can withdraw an option once exercised under section 115BAA by filing Form No. 10-IC. 2. Whether filing Form No. 10-IC alone operates conclusively to invoke section 115BAA where the return of income and tax audit report record the taxpayer as having not opted for the concessional regime and claim deductions/credits incompatible with section 115BAA (notably MAT credit under section 115JAA). 3. Whether an option under section 115BAA becomes invalid where the assessee, in the return, claims amounts or credits that contravene the conditions of section 115BAA(2) (substantial non-compliance), and if so, whether the exercise of option is to be treated as if not made for that year and subsequent years. 4. Whether the matter should be remitted to the assessing authority for verification and adjudication where facts indicate procedural lapses or inconsistent filings (Form 10-IC filed but ITR/tax audit show 'No') and MAT credit was claimed but unverified by the AO. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Power to withdraw an option once exercised under section 115BAA Legal framework: Section 115BAA(5) prescribes that the option must be exercised in the prescribed manner on or before the due date under section 139(1); proviso states that 'once the option has been exercised for any previous year, it cannot be subsequently withdrawn for the same or any other previous year.' Precedent treatment: Authorities and coordinate benches have held the statutory prohibition against withdrawal to be clear; simultaneously, several benches have applied principles of substantial compliance and remitted cases where procedural lapses occurred to prevent hardship. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal treats the statutory bar on withdrawal as definitive - answer to whether an exercised option can be withdrawn is 'No'. However, the Tribunal recognizes an exception in practice where the option, though formally exercised, may be rendered inoperative if conditions of section 115BAA(2) are not met (see Issue 2 and 3 below). Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - statutory text precludes withdrawal; Obiter - practical nuance that exercise may be treated as inoperative where conditions are violated. Conclusion: The option, once exercised by filing Form 10-IC, cannot be withdrawn as a matter of pure statutory prescription; but this does not foreclose treating the option as invalid where statutory conditions are not satisfied. Issue 2 - Consequence of filing Form 10-IC when return/tax audit contradict that choice and claim incompatible credits (MAT) in the return Legal framework: Section 115BAA(2) lists deductions/sets-offs not allowable if option is availed; section 115BAA proviso renders option invalid where conditions in sub-section (2) are not satisfied; section 115JAA(8) denies MAT credit where option under 115BAA is exercised. Precedent treatment: Coordinate benches (Mumbai, Pune, Kolkata, Ahmedabad) have applied the doctrine of substantial compliance to distinguish pure procedural lapses (permitting relief) from substantive non-fulfillment of conditions; some benches have directed assessing officers to accept Form 10-IC where substantial compliance is shown and procedural hardship would otherwise result. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined whether the practical facts (Form 10-IC filed; ITR and tax audit report show 'No'; tax computed under old regime; MAT credit claimed) amount to mere procedural lapse or to failure to satisfy mandatory conditions of section 115BAA(2). The Tribunal reasons that if the return affirmatively claims deductions/credits disallowed under 115BAA (e.g., MAT credit under 115JAA), that constitutes non-fulfilment of the statutory preconditions and, by operation of the proviso, the option may be treated as if not exercised for the relevant year and subsequent years. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where return/tax audit affirmatively claims benefits incompatible with 115BAA conditions, the option can be treated as invalid under the statutory proviso; Obiter - application of substantial compliance doctrine where procedural lapses (e.g., late/non-uploading of Form 10-IC without incompatible claims) may be excused. Conclusion: Filing Form 10-IC is a component of exercise of option, but its legal effectiveness depends on satisfaction of substantive conditions. If the return claims MAT credit or other benefits barred under 115BAA(2), the earlier filing of Form 10-IC can be construed as invalidated for that year (and subsequent years) notwithstanding the statutory bar on withdrawal. Issue 3 - Application of doctrine of substantial compliance and role of appellate authority in remediation/remand Legal framework: Doctrine of substantial compliance permits relief where mandatory and directory requirements are mixed such that important statutory requirements are complied with though procedural formalities may be defective; appellate authorities have co-terminus powers with AOs to consider facts admitted or furnished during appeal. Precedent treatment: Several coordinate benches and higher courts (cited in the judgment) have permitted filing/taking on record of supporting documents (audit reports, Form 10-IC) during appellate proceedings or remitted matters to AO where substantive entitlement is satisfied and procedural lapses are technical. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal balances strict statutory text against equitable and pragmatic considerations. It accepts that where the taxpayer has been eligible and has demonstrated substantive compliance (for example, declared option in audit report/ITR and paid tax accordingly) procedural defects should not defeat substantive rights. Conversely, where return demonstrates deliberate reliance on the old regime and claims incompatible credits, that substantive inconsistency negates the benefit. Given unresolved factual elements (notably verification of the MAT credit by AO), the Tribunal finds remand appropriate. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - appellate authority (or AO on remand) should verify facts and take on record Form 10-IC and related material and adjudicate entitlement; Obiter - references to various coordinate bench decisions exemplifying remedial approaches. Conclusion: Where factual record is mixed or procedural lapses exist, the matter should be restored to the assessing authority (or dealt with by the appellate authority exercising co-terminus power) to verify eligibility, accept Form 10-IC where appropriate under the doctrine of substantial compliance, or treat the option as invalid where statutory conditions are substantively breached. Issue 4 - Direction for verification of MAT credit and computation under old regime where option is treated as invalid Legal framework: Section 115JAA governs MAT credit; if option under 115BAA is invalidated, normal rate computations and MAT credit may be allowable subject to verification. Precedent treatment: Courts/tribunals have directed remand for verification where revenue records do not reflect examination of claimed credits. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal observed that MAT credit was claimed but not verified by the assessing officer; because the option's validity affects entitlement to MAT credit, verification is necessary before final adjudication. The Tribunal remitted the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with directions to permit computation under the old regime and verification of the MAT credit consistent with natural justice. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - remand is necessary where material facts (e.g., MAT credit entitlement) have not been verified and the resolution of option validity depends on those facts; Obiter - guidance that natural justice and fair play require opportunity to be heard and verification. Conclusion: The question of MAT credit and correct tax computation is to be reopened and verified by the authority; the matter is remitted for fresh adjudication permitting the assessee to compute tax under the old regime and substantiate MAT credit, and for the authority to apply section 115BAA provisos and section 115JAA consistently. Overall Disposition and Ratio of the Decision The Tribunal holds: (a) the statutory rule that an option under section 115BAA once exercised cannot be withdrawn remains operative; (b) nonetheless, where the return/tax audit demonstrates claims or conduct inconsistent with the conditions of section 115BAA(2) (for example, claiming MAT credit under section 115JAA), the option may be treated as invalid for the relevant year and subsequent years by operation of the proviso; (c) where factual inconsistencies or unverified claims exist, the proper course is remand to the assessing/appellate authority to take Form 10-IC on record, verify records (including MAT credit), afford opportunity of hearing, and recompute tax accordingly; and (d) accordingly the appeal was partly allowed by restoring the matter for fresh adjudication to verify MAT credit and permit computation under the old regime if warranted.