BROACH TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,AURANGABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD

ORDER

Per PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM:

2. The relevant facts of the case are that assessee, a domestic company, claims that it had opted for alternate tax regime u/sec. 115BAA of the Act in A.Y. 2021-22. It is further submitted that while processing the return u/sec. 143(1) of the Act, the claim had not been considered and hence the assessee had preferred appeal before the first appellate authority. The return of income for A.Y. 2021-22 was filed by the assessee on 20/11/2021, before the extended due date of 15/03/2022 u/sec. 139(1) of the Act. Though, the assessee claims

Broach Technology India P. Ltd. that it had exercised the option to be assessed u/sec. 115BAA of the Act, the requisite Form 10IC was not filed within the prescribed due date by the assessee as required under Rule 21AE. Therefore, the return of income was processed u/sec. 143(1) applying normal provisions of the Act. Therefore, the solitary issue for adjudication before the NFAC was whether for A.Y. 2021-22 the option has been validly exercised by the assessee u/sec. 115BAA and Rule 21AE or not. The NFAC observes that the assessee had filed Form 10IC for the first time on 06/09/2022, that too only for the subsequent assessment year i.e. A.Y. 2022-23, which has since been accepted as evident from the intimation u/sec. 143(1) dated 04/11/2022 issued for A.Y. 2022-23. However, the assessee claims now that it has subsequently filed Form 10IC on 06/04/2023 for the year under appeal i.e. A.Y. 2021-22 also and hence seeks to be assessed u/sec. 115BAA for the impugned year as well, which was held as not admissible by the NFAC on the given facts and as per the provisions of the Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad [1999] 8 SCC 266 has held that “if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner”. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Shivanand Electronics [1994] 209 ITR 63 to emphasise the point as follows: “When the Legislature casts a duty on the assessee claiming a certain benefit, to comply with requirements which are associated with such benefit, the assessee cannot get the benefit without doing his part of the duty. He cannot be allowed to say that it was for the ITO to ask him to 2

Broach Technology India P. Ltd. do so. If the assessee does not do his part of the statutory duty, the ITO may proceed to decide the allowability or otherwise of the relief on the basis of the facts and material available before him.”

We, therefore, do not find any infirmity with the findings of the NFAC which is hereby upheld. The grounds of appeal of the assessee stands dismissed.

Order pronounced in open Court on 18th December, 2023.