TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 617
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s M/s A Infrastructure Limited and is presently known as M/s Kanoria Energy & Infrastructure Limited. The petitioner is regularly assessed under the Income Tax Act, 1961 and has been duly filing its returns of income. For the Assessment Year 2020-21, the petitioner filed its return of income in Form ITR-6 on 09.01.2021 within the extended due date, declaring total income of Rs.5,21,66,960/- and opted for taxation under Section 115BAA of the Act at the concessional rate of 22%. 2.1 The Centralised Processing Centre, while processing the return under Section 143(1), recomputed the income and applied the normal rate of tax instead of the concessional rate under Section 115BAA, resulting in a demand. The petitioner challenged the intimation before the National Faceless Appeal Centre, which accepted that the petitioner had exercised the option under Section 115BAA and directed the Assessing Officer to apply the concessional rate. However, in further appellate proceedings before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication of legal issues without disturbing the finding regarding the petitioner's option under Section 115BAA.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f his argument. 3.3. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, aside all above, as far as the limitation/time period is concerned, it is admitted position of the department that the petitioner had though furnished the information within the prescribed limits, but the same was submitted at the local jurisdictional office, i.e., the Income Tax Office, Ward 1, Bhilwara, as advised, instead of being furnished at the head office to the Chief Commissioner, Udaipur. The application for condonation was filed as an abundant caution and same has been completely misconstrued by the department while rejecting it vide impugned order, is the argument in the alterative. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner failed to exercise the option under Section 115BAA of the Act in the prescribed manner. As per Rule 21AE, the option is required to be exercised by filing Form No. 10-IC on or before the due date specified under Section 139(1) of the Act. It is contended that Section 115BAA(5) clearly mandates that the benefit of the concessional tax regime shall not apply unless such option is exercised within the prescribed time and in the pre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng of Form No. 10-IC or Form No. 10-ID shall be entertained beyond three years from the end of the assessment year for which such application is made. The time limit for filing of such application within three years from the end of the assessment year will be applicable for application filed on or after the date of issue of this Circular. A condonation application should be disposed of, as far as possible, within six months from the end of the month in which such application is received by the Competent Authority." 2. Therefore, considering the impugned application, the reply(ies) filed by the assessee in compliance to the Notice(s)/Letter(s) so issued in the matter, the report of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, that of the Range Head and the Pr. CIT, the overall facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record vis-à-vis the provisions contained in Circular No. 17/2024, as categorically mentioned above, it may be unambiguously said that the assessee was required to submit application for Condonation of delay in filing Form No. 10IC for A.Y. 2020-21 on or before 31.03.2024, whereas, the assessee has filed application on 28/12/2024 (received in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ht of the above chronology, original CBDT Circular No.19/2023 dated 23.10.2023 (later clarified/superceded on 18.11.2024, as also reproduced in the impugned order) be now seen. Paragraph 3 thereof being apposite is extracted here in below:- "3. On consideration of the matter, with a view to avoid genuine hardship to the domestic companies in exercising the option u/s 115BAA of the Act, CBDT in exercise of the powers conferred under section 119(2)(b) of the Act, hereby directs that:- The delay in filing of Form No. 10-IC as per Rule 21AE of the Rules for previous year relevant to A.Y. 2021-22 is condoned in cases where the following conditions are satisfied: (i) The return of income for relevant assessment year has been filed on or before the due date specified under section 139(1) of the Act; (ii) The assessee company has opted for taxation u/s 115BAA of the Act in item (e) of "Filing Status" in "Part A-GEN" of the Form of Return of Income ITR-6; and (iii) Form No. 10-IC is filed electronically on or before 31.01.2024 or 3 months from the end of the month in which this Circular is issued, whichever is later." 9. A bare perusal of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which was filed on 28.12.2024. Circular No. 17/2024 read with Circular No. 19/2023 contemplates condonation of delay in filing of Form 10-IC, not delay in filing the condonation application as a standalone procedural exercise divorced from the underlying act. Since the Form itself was filed on 30.01.2023 and was duly placed before and considered by the AO while passing the Appeal Effect Order, the substantive requirement stood fulfilled long before the cut-off of 31.03.2024. 14. Though counsel for the petitioner has argued that the settled principle of law is that a procedural or directory requirement cannot be elevated to defeat substantive compliance that is otherwise beyond doubt, but be that as it may, arguendo, assuming that the requirement is/was mandatory, even then it is borne out that compliance thereof was duly carried out within the prescribed time limits as envisaged in the CBDT Circulars, ibid. Where the intent and substance of an option or claim is clearly established from the return itself, a mere procedural omission, as is the case in hand, same ought not to be visited with penal consequences of denial of the beneficial provision. 15. There is another aspe....