Condonation under s.119(2)(b) validates s.115BAA option; AO directed to apply, recompute 22% tax and re-hear

ITAT (Ahmedabad) held that condonation of delay u/s 119(2)(b) validated the assessee's option under s.115BAA, rendering the sole dispute on denial of the 22% concessional rate moot. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) order and restored the matter to the AO with directions: (i) take cognizance of the condonation order dated 11.09.2025; (ii) verify electronic filing of Form No.10-IC and recompute tax at 22% u/s 115BAA; and (iii) afford the assessee opportunity of being heard. Appeal allowed for statistical purposes.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether the assessee validly exercised the option to be taxed under section 115BAA where the return of income manifested the option but Form No. 10-IC required by Rule 21AE was not filed within time.

2. Whether condonation of delay under section 119(2)(b) for filing Form No. 10-IC validates the option under section 115BAA retrospectively and requires recomputation of tax at the concessional rate.

3. Whether the processing of return under section 143(1) at the normal tax rate without opportunity of hearing constitutes a sustain-able denial of concession when subsequent administrative condonation is granted.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Valid exercise of option under section 115BAA where Form No. 10-IC was not timely filed

Legal framework: Section 115BAA provides an option to certain domestic companies to be taxed at a concessional rate subject to conditions; Rule 21AE prescribes filing of Form No. 10-IC electronically with digital signature or EVC to exercise the option under section 115BAA(5).

Precedent Treatment: No judicial precedents were cited or applied in the judgment; the Court relied on the statutory scheme and rules as determinative.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court treated Rule 21AE as a procedural mandate for valid exercise of the option. The mere selection of the concessional rate in the ITR (Part A-GEN) is a declaration of intent but, absent statutory compliance with Rule 21AE, the option is not validly exercised at the initial processing stage. Thus, the CPC's mechanical denial of the concessional rate on account of non-filing of Form No. 10-IC was lawful at that point.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - compliance with Rule 21AE is necessary for valid exercise of section 115BAA option; the selection in ITR alone does not substitute the prescribed Form 10-IC requirement.

Conclusion: At the time of initial processing, non-filing of Form No. 10-IC rendered the option under section 115BAA invalid for computational purposes.

Issue 2: Effect of condonation under section 119(2)(b) on the validity of the option under section 115BAA

Legal framework: Section 119(2)(b) empowers the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner to condone delay in compliance with provisions of the Act or rules, thereby permitting retrospective compliance where authority so directs.

Precedent Treatment: No precedents were invoked; the decision applied statutory power under section 119 to the facts.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal accepted the PCIT's exercise of power under section 119(2)(b) to condone the delay in filing Form No. 10-IC. The Court held that such condonation cures the procedural lapse and renders the option under section 115BAA validly exercised. The effect of the condonation is to validate the previously incomplete compliance with Rule 21AE, removing the sole substantive basis for denial of the concessional rate.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - administrative condonation under section 119(2)(b) of delay in filing Form No. 10-IC validates the option under section 115BAA for the assessment year concerned, necessitating recalculation of tax at the concessional rate.

Conclusion: The condonation order dated 11.09.2025 validated the option under section 115BAA; consequently, the denial of the concessional rate ceased to be sustainable.

Issue 3: Necessity of opportunity to be heard and remedy where CPC/first instance processing denied concession mechanically

Legal framework: Principles of fair procedure require that where material facts or subsequent administrative orders affect tax computation, the assessee be afforded an opportunity to be heard before finalizing adjustments; Assessing Officer's recomputation must follow verification and hearing.

Precedent Treatment: No judicial authorities were cited; the Tribunal relied on procedural fairness and statutory direction powers.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that CPC's initial mechanical processing and subsequent rectification without considering condonation led to continuing denial of the concession. Given the PCIT's condonation, the Tribunal found it appropriate to set aside the CIT(A) order and restore the matter to the AO with specific directions to verify electronic filing of Form No. 10-IC, recompute tax at 22% under section 115BAA, and afford the assessee a hearing before giving effect to the recomputation.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where administrative authority condones procedural non-compliance, the matter should be remitted for verification and recomputation with an opportunity of hearing rather than final adjudication that ignores the condonation.

Conclusion: The Tribunal directed remand for verification of filing and recomputation at concessional rate, coupled with an opportunity to be heard; this remedial course was considered necessary and appropriate.

Interrelation and final disposition

Cross-reference: Issues 1 and 2 are interlinked - initial invalidity under Rule 21AE (Issue 1) is rendered moot by section 119(2)(b) condonation (Issue 2); Issue 3 addresses procedural consequences and remedy following condonation.

Final conclusion: The Tribunal held that the PCIT's condonation validates the option under section 115BAA, set aside the CIT(A) order, and remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer to verify electronic filing of Form No. 10-IC, recompute tax at 22% under section 115BAA, and afford the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

---