TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 103
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isite Form 10-IC under Rule 21AE of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 on 19.12.2022. Thereafter, the assessee filed its return of income on 23.12.2022 and due tax was paid at concessional tax rate of 22% under section 115BAA of the Act. The return was processed vide intimation under section 143(1) of the Act dated 26.06.2023 wherein a normal tax rate of 30% was applied by CPC to the total income of the assessee as against the concessional tax rate of 22% as per section 115BAA of the Act and further applied MAT provisions u/s 115JB of the Act which are otherwise not applicable on opting concessional tax regime u/s 115BAA of the Act. The reason for applying the normal tax rate was that the assessee has not followed the conditions to opt for concessional rate of taxation. It was observed that the assessee was required to file Form 10IC on or before the due date specified under sub section (1) of section 139 for furnishing the return of Income to avail the benefit. Since, the assessee filed Form 10IC on 19.12.2022 and ITR on 23.12.2022, which was after the due date of filing of its ITR as specified under sub section (1) of section 139 of the Act. The due date of filing of ITR u/s. 139(1) was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on and act of the assessee was very clear to opt new tax regime as per section 115BAA. Besides, IT portal did not provide option for condonation of delay in filing this form. The ld.AR has also relied on certain decisions of co-ordinate benches and High Court in support of the contention that filing of form is not mandatory, which are as under : (a) State of Punjab vs Shamlal Murari (AIR 1976 SC 1177) (b) CIT vs J.H.Gotla (MANU/SC/0126/1985) (c) Bajaj Tempo Ltd. vs CIT [1992] 196 ITR 188 (SC) (d) Akshay Devendra Birari vs DCIT, CPC [TS-402-ITAT- 2024 (PUN)] (e) Krishna Gopal Diwvedi HUF [TS-140-ITAT-2025 (Mum.)] (f) Cell Com Teleservices (P.) Ltd. vs Union of India [2025] 176 taxmann.com 712 (Allahabad) [17.07.2025] (g) Bansal Corelam Pvt.Ltd.v s ITO, ITA No.1856/Del/2023 dated 26.11.2024 (h) Aprameya Engineering Ltd. vs ITO [TS-411-ITAT-2024 (Ahd.)] 6. It is also argued that as per section 143(1) the impugned adjustment of different tax rate not does not fall within the scope of adjustment stated in Section 143(1)(a). He thus, prayed that tax be charged int eh case of the assessee at concessional tax rate a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Dilip Kumar (2018) 9 SCC 1 (FB, SC), while deciding the Doctrine of Substantial Compliance held as under: "33. A fiscal statute generally seeks to preserve the need to comply strictly with regulatory requirements that are important, especially when a party seeks the benefits of an exemption clause that are important. Substantial compliance with an enactment is insisted, where mandatory and directory requirements are lumped together, for in such a case, if mandatory requirements are complied with, it will be proper to say that the enactment has been substantially complied with notwithstanding the noncompliance of directory requirements. In cases where substantial compliance has been found, there has been actual compliance with the statute, albeit procedurally faulty. The doctrine of substantial compliance seeks to preserve the need to comply strictly with the conditions or requirements that are important to invoke a tax or duty exemption and to forgive non-compliance for either unimportant and tangential requirements or requirements that are so confusingly or incorrectly written that an earnest effort at compliance should be accepted." 10. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Cour....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....21. After perusing the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, records and case laws cited, in the opinion of the Court, the genuine hardship shall be seen by the concerned respondent authority as the petitioner is not getting benefit of concessional rate of tax under the Act, in respect of delay, therefore, the impugned order dated 30.01.2024 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad is quashed and the respondent authority is directed to condone the delay in filing Form 10-IC and accept the said Form 10-IC. The respondent concerned is further directed to provide consequential relief to the petitioner by recomputing its tax liability on the submission of its ITR by taking into account Form 10-IC. 22. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed." 11. The Co-ordinate Bench of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Bansal Corelam Pvt. Ltd v ITO, ITA No. 1856/Del/2023 dated 26 November 2024, Hon'ble ITAT Delhi (refer Page No. 1-6 of CLC) held as below: 2. "The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Id NFAC was justified in confirming the denial of claim made by the assessee to opt new tax regime under section 115BAA of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gnition of such procedural difficulties. These Circulars indicate a degree of administrative flexibility and a recognition that procedural lapses should not necessarily lead to the denial of substantive benefits. Moreover, denving the benefit based solely on this lapse would be against the principles of equity and justice, especially when there is no dispute regarding the assessee's eligibility for the lower tax rate." 4. Respectfully following the same, we direct the learned AO to recompute the income under the new tax regime in terms of section 115BAA of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed." 12. The Co-ordinate Bench of Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Aprameya Engineering Ltd. vs. ITO [TS-411-ITAT-2024(Ahd)) (refer Page No. 7-17 of CLC) wherein it was held that considering the principle of beneficial interpretation, the procedural requirements should not override substantive benefits. Hence, delay in filing of Form 10-IC, being a procedural requirement, should not invalidate the assessee's right to claim the benefit of Section 115BAA of the Act. It was further held that CBDT ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cated." 13. The Co-ordinate Bench of Pune Tribunal in the case of Akshay (Akshay Devendra Biruri vs. DCIT, CPC [TS-402-ITAT- 2024(PUN)] (refer Page No. 18-21 of CLC) wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal held that in order to claim the benefit of the new tax regime, filing of Form 101E under Rule 21AG of the Rules, is not a mandatory requirement but it is rather directory in nature. The Hon'ble Tribunal directed the Revenue to allow the benefit of the new tax regime by taking into consideration the Form 101E as the same was available with the Revenue at the time of processing the return of income. The relevant paragraph of the said ruling is reproduced herewith for your Honour's ready reference: 7. "We heard the Id. Sr. DR and perused the relevant material on record. The solitary issue that arises for our consideration in the present appeal is whether the CPC was justified in denying the benefit of New Tax Regime. Admittedly, the appellant had failed to submit the prescribed Form No.101E in order to claim the benefit of New Tax Regime before the due date for filing the return of income. However, the appellant had filed the said form on 10.01.2024 on which date the CP....