TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 701
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3. That under the facts and circumstances of the case both the lower authorities erred in law as well as on merit in not considering the Form 10-IC filed after due date. 4. That under the facts and circumstances of the case no interest u/s 234B and 234C should have been charged without prejudice, interest charged is excessive. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2024-25 declaring a total income of Rs. 6,85,34,000/-. In the ITR and Tax Audit Report the assessee clearly opted for the concessional tax regime under section 115BAA and computed tax accordingly at 22% plus applicable surcharge and cess. Due to a technical glitch on the ITBA portal at the time of filing of ITR Form 10-IC could not be uploaded. In order to proceed with the filing a junior staff member entered a fictitious acknowledgment number and date on the portal which was accepted without raising any validation error. This error was not corrected before the submission of the return of income. The return of income was processed under section 143(1) of the Act by CPC, which raised a demand of Rs. 65,61,780/- under normal provisions ignoring the computation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....115BAA of the act by declaring total income of Rs. 6,85,34,000/-. The requirement to file Form No.10-IC along with return of income adhered by mentioning the wrong acknowledgment number on the portal. The correct Form No 10-IC was admittedly filed by the assessee after the processed of the return of income by the CPC. The Ld. CPC while processing the return of income under section 143(1) of the Act denied the benefit of lower tax rate as provided under section 115BAA of the act to the assessee on the ground that valid Form 10-IC was not uploaded on the portal. In the present case the Form 10-IC was uploaded after the prescribed time. The intention of the assessee to disclose the income under the new regime under section 115BAA of the Act was disclosed in the tax audit report of the assessee. The coordinate bench in the various decision held that filing the Form 10-IC is directory in nature and granted the relief to the assessee. In the case of KN Support Services Pvt.Ltd. the co-ordinate bench held as under: "8. We have heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available and relevant facts of the case. The sole issue involved in the instant appeal is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the enactment has been substantially complied with notwithstanding the non-compliance 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 Court in the case of Cell Com Teleservices (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India [2025] 176 taxmann.com 712 M (Allahabad) [17-07-2025) (refer Page No. 36 55 of Case Law Compilation (CLC)) wherein the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court held as under - 19. "The arbitrary rejection of the condonation of delay in filing Form 10-IC are strongly supported by various judgments that widely interpret "genuine hardship" under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.M. Malani (supra) emphasized that "genuine hardship"....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 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 the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee is a private limited company and had filed its return of income for assessment year 2021-22 belatedly on 30-3-2022. The extended due date under section 139(1) of the Act for the year under consideration was 15-3-2022. The assessee in the return of income had opted to pay the tax under the new tax regime as provided in section 115BAA of the Act by declarin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 circulars extending due dates for filing of such forms in the earlier years indicate a degree of administrative flexibility and recognition that procedural lapses should not lead to denial of substantive benefits. The relevant extract of the judgement is reproduced as under: 8.1... "In the instant case, the Ld.A.O. as well as the Ld.CIT(A) has denied benefit of concessional tax rate u/s 115BAA of the Act on account of an inadvertent error on the part of the assessee in not e-filing Form 10 IC before due d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....E 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 CPC had processed the return of income u/s, 143(1)(a) denying the benefit of New Tax Regime. In any event, it is not a mandatory requirement for filing of Form No.101E but directory in nature. The Form No.101E was very much available with the CPC and the CPC ought to have considered the same allowing the benefit of New Tax Regime. Therefore, we direct the CPC to amend the intimation by taking into consideration the Form No.101E, as the same was available with the CPC at the time of processing the return of inco....