TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1015
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....declaring loss Rs. 11,46,283/-. The Ld. AO computed the taxable income of the assessee amount of Rs. 2,02,89,906/- being book profit u/sec. 115JB of the Act. The CPC issued the notice u/sec 139(9) of the Act for defective return related to difference in amount reflected in Form No.26AS and turnover declared by the assessee. The assessee response the notice and rectified the defect by submitting the revise return u/sec. 139(5) of the Act, but before filing the return the assessee filed Form No.10IC under Rule 21AE of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred the 'Rules'). Accordingly the assessee had fulfiled the necessary condition for claiming the simplified tax scheme u/sec. 115BAA of the Act. The return for process u/sec. 143(1) of the Act by the CPC. The CPC rejected the assessee's claim for allowing the benefit in simplified tax scheme u/sec. 115BAA of the Act and the demand was raised 32,99,240/-. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the assessee's appeal. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. 3. The Learned Authorised Representative (Ld. AR) submitted that a paper book comprising pages 1 to 218 has been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is the Return. The validity of the said intimation is challenged vide ground 1.5 & 1.6. Therefore the said intimation u/s 143(1) must be set aside. 2. The Appellant filed its return under section 139(9) of the Act in response to the defect notice u/s 139(9) issued by the CPC. It is not a revised return under section 139(5) of the Act. This return was filed to remove the defect as notified vide defect memo dated 22.11.2024 (Ref. Pg. 107 & 108 of Paper Book). 3. Prior to the filing of return, the Assessee had already filed Form 10 IC in accordance with Rule 21AE of the Income Tax Rules and therefore fulfilled all the conditions necessary for claiming the simplified Tax Scheme u/s 115BAA of the Act. 4. In the fact that the Assessee has made a claim u/s 115BAA of the Act in his return of income is also admitted in the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act. 5. In any case, the denial of concessional / simplified tax scheme u/s 115BAA of the Act is an issue requiring deliberation and therefore incapable of being adjudicated in an intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act. 6. The Appellant further submits that neither the CPC nor the Learned Commiss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e processing of the return. The Ld. AR respectfully relied on the order of Coordinate bench of ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Aprameya Engineering Ltd. vs ITO reported in (2024) 164 taxmann.com 740 (Ahmedabad-Trib). The relevant paragraphs of the said order are reproduced as below: "8.1 The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Zenith Processing Mills v. CIT [1996] 219 ITR 721 held that provision of section 80J(6A) of the Act to extent it requires furnishing of auditor's report in prescribed form along with return, is directory in nature and not mandatory. Further, it was held that the assessee can be permitted to produce such a report at later stage when question of disallowance arises during course of assessment proceedings. 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 date prescribed. We are, therefore, of the view that there is sufficient compliance if the Form 10 IC has been filed during the course of proceeding, since there is nored in Form 3CD. judicial objective to be achieved ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....said section. Accordingly, the Ld. DR relied on the orders of revenue authorities. The relevant paragraphs of the order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court are reproduced as below:- "11. In the present case, the petitioner had not exercised its option before the due date for filing the return of income in respect of AY 2020-21. Admittedly, the time for filing the return under Section 139(1) of the Act was extended till 15.02.2021 on account of outbreak of Covid-19. The petitioner had filed its return on 13.02.2021, which was within the time as prescribed, however, the petitioner had expressly indicated that it was not opting for taxation under Section 115BAA of the Act. The relevant extract of the return filed by the petitioner, setting out the 'filing status' is reproduced below:- "Filing Status Filed u/s or Filed in Response to notice u/s 139(1)-On or before due date If revised/in response to notice for Defective/ Modified, then enter Receipt No. Date of filing original return (DD/MM/YYYY) If filed, in response to a notice u/s 139(9)/142(1)/148/153A/153C or order under section 119(2)(b), enter unique number /Document Identification Number (DIN) and date....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me of a person, being a domestic company, for any previous year relevant to the assessment year beginning on or after the 1st day of April, 2020, shall, at the option of such person be computed at the rate of twenty-two per cent subject to satisfaction of conditions contained in subsection (2) of the section. 1.2 As per sub-section (5) of section 115BAA of the act read with Rule 21AF of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (the Rules), the assessee company is required to submit Form 10-IC electronically on or before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act and such option once exercised shall apply to subsequent assessment years. 1.3 Failure to furnish such option in the prescribed form on or before the due date specified u/s 139(1) of the Act results in denial of concessional rate of tax of twenty rate of tax of twenty-two per cent to such person. 2. Representations have been received by the Board stating that Form 10-IC could not be filed along with the return of income for AY 2020-21, which was the first year of filing of this form. It has been requested that the delay in filing of Form 10-IC may be condoned. 3. On consideration ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e in the assessee's case. The relevant extract of the submissions made by the Ld. AR is reproduced below: "10. The Appellant further submits that the judgment of the Honourable Delhi High Court in the case of Sarla holdings Pvt. Ltd. v/s PCIT [2025] 179 taxman.com 83 is distinguishable on facts, in as much as, in that case Assessee had made a conscious choice of not opting for the concessional scheme of taxation u/s 115BAA of the Act [Ref. para 11 of the said judgement]. Further in that case, no specific reason was provided by the Assessee before the Honourable Delhi High Court justifying the non-filing of form 10 IC and non-opting of the provisions of section 115BAA of the Act. 11. The judgement in the case of Sarla Holdings (supra), was a case where an assessment was framed under section 143(3) of the Act and the Assessee was given the opportunity to explain. In the present case the appeal is against an intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act and therefore the facts are different. Even on this count the said judgement in the case of Sarla holdings is inapplicable. 12. It is further submitted that, in any case the Assessee has merely rectified its defective ret....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tention to opt for the concessional tax regime under section 115BAA of the Act. It is also an undisputed fact that the said Form No. 10IC was already available on the record at the time when the return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act on 22.01.2025. The assessee has explained that the delay in filing Form No. 10IC along with the original return occurred due to a medical emergency faced by the accountant responsible for handling the income-tax matters, and a notarized affidavit to this effect was also placed on record. The delay involved was minimal, and the intention of the assessee to opt for the concessional regime was clearly demonstrated through the filing of Form No. 10IC as well as through the subsequent rectified return. Judicial precedents relied upon by the assessee, including the decisions of the Coordinate Benches in Lahari Holiday Homes Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Aprameya Engineering Ltd. (supra) support the proposition that procedural lapses should not defeat a substantive claim where the intention to avail the benefit is clearly evident and the statutory conditions are otherwise fulfilled. We also find merit in the contention of the assessee that the decisi....