SHARUS STEEL PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(1), MUMBAI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT () & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN () Assessment Year: 2024-25
PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM
This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated
18.07.2025 passed by the Ld. Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – Kolkata [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2024-25, raising following grounds:
1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in passing order u/s.
250 of the Act and confirming the addition made by Ld. A.O.
The Ld. CI action of Ld. by appellant u 3. The Ld. CI action of Ld. A provision of s. 4. The Ld. CI the fact that f rate u/s. 115B 2. Briefly stated, t the manufacture of the year under con 01.10.2024 declaring of ₹17,240/-. In th taxation under the co the Income-tax Act, 1 2.1 The return of in intimation order u/s the Central Processin Officer CPC’]. The CP disregarding tax lia concessional tax regi 2.2 The assessee su it had correctly select GEN of the ITR form inadvertence, Form N Sharus ITA
IT(A) has erred in law and in facts in c
A.O. in denying benefit of concessional u/s. 115BAA of the Act.
IT(A) has erred in law and in facts in c
A.O. in determining the tax liability of ap
. 115JB of the Act amounting to Rs. 10,87
IT(A) has erred in law and in facts in no filing of Form 10-IC for availing benefit of 5BAA is directory in nature and not mand he assessee is a domestic comp steel doors, frames and fabric nsideration, it filed its return g a loss of ₹35,47,625/- and cl he return of income, the asse oncessional rate provided in sec
1961 (“the Act”).
ncome filed by the assessee was 143(1) of the Act was passed on ng Unit, Bangalore [in short ‘th
PC computed tax liability u/s 1
ability computed by the asses me following section 115BAA of ubmitted that while filing the re ted the option under section 11
m and computed tax according
No. 10-IB was uploaded on 01.1
Steel Products Pvt. Ltd
2
A No. 4903/MUM/2025
confirming the tax rate opted confirming the ppellant as per
7,39,350/- ot appreciating f concessional datory.
pany engaged in ation work. For n of income on laimed a refund essee opted for ction 115BAA of s processed and n 22.01.2025 by he Ld. Assessing
15JB of the Act ssee under the f the Act.
eturn of income
5BAA in Part A–
gly. However, by 10.2024 instead of the prescribed electronically filed th sought rectification u
07.02.2025. The re without assigning any 2.3 Aggrieved with assessee filed appeal
The Ld. CIT(A) was claiming concessiona requirement and th assessee, he upheld t of the Ld. CIT(A) is re
“5.1 I have c grounds of a regard. Briefl return of inco certain adjus issue involve return of inco
I.T. Act. Howe
CPC charged
5.2 All the g charging of ta in the return o the Act, in ord this section, a 21AE of I.T. R as specified i filed Form 10
date. Since requirement, instead of tha
Sharus
ITA
Form No. 10-IC. Thereafter, he correct Form No. 10-IC on 3
under section 154 by filing a re ectification request, however, y reason.
the intimation u/s 143(1) o l before the Ld. CIT(A) but cou of the view that filing of form al tax regime within due date w herefore, non-compliance on t the finding of the Ld. CPC. The eproduced as under:
carefully gone through the Intimation u appeal and submission made by the ap fly stating facts of the case is that the ome which was processed u/s 143(1) b stments over and above the returned inc ed in this case is that the appellant w me opting to be taxed at special rate u/s ever, while processing the return u/s 14
tax at normal rate.
rounds of appeal raised by the appella ax at normal rate instead of that u/s 11
of income. As per the provisions of sectio der to avail the benefit of taxation at spe a taxpayer is required to e-file Form 10-IC
Rules, 1962 within the due date of filing r in section 139(1) of the Act. In this case
0-IB instead of Form 10-IC by mistake filing of Form 10-IC within due dat
CPC was justified in computing the tax at u/s 115BAA. The appeal is therefore d
Steel Products Pvt. Ltd
3
A No. 4903/MUM/2025
, the assessee
30.01.2025 and evised return on , was rejected of the Act, the uld not succeed.
m No. 10-IC for was a statutory he part of the relevant finding u/s 143(1), the ppellant in this appellant filed by CPC making come. The only which had filed s 115BAA of the 43(1) of the Act, ant are against
5BAA as opted on 115BAA(5) of ecial rate under C read with Rule return of income e, the appellant within the due te is statutory at normal rate dismissed.”
Before us, the l Book (pages 1–28) 01.10.2024, Form No filed on 31.01.202 reiterated that the o substantive condition 4. We have heard the relevant material assessee filed retu concessional rate of the provisions of the Rules, 1962 (in shor regime. But , the cor No. 10-IC of the R otherwise fulfilled a concessional tax regi Form No. 10-IC, the that was the sole rea for assessing under the old tax regime an 4.1 Thus, the limi whether the failure to is fatal to the asses procedural and can Sharus ITA learned counsel for the assesse containing the return of in o. 10-IB filed the same day, and 5, among other documents. omission was purely inadverte ns of section 115BAA stood satis rival submissions of the parti ls on record. The undisputed fa urn of income on 01.10.202 new tax regime u/s 115BAA o Act and filed form no. 10-IB un rt ‘the Rules’) for opting such c rrect form prescribed for this pu Rules. The assessee submitte all the terms and conditions f ime u/s 115BAA but inadverte assessee filed Form No. 10-IB o ason the CPC rejected the option the concessional tax regime a nd computed tax liability of Rs.1 ited issue arising for our c o file Form No. 10-IC within the ssee’s claim, or whether such be condoned when the substan Steel Products Pvt. Ltd 4 A No. 4903/MUM/2025 ee filed a Paper ncome filed on Form No. 10-IC The assessee nt and that all sfied. ies and perused acts are that the 24 opting the of the Act under nder Income-tax concessional tax urpose was form ed that it has for eligibility of ently in place of of the Rules and n of the assessee nd taxed under 0,59,20,641/-. consideration is prescribed time requirement is ntive conditions are met. The learned ordinate Bench of th No. 1291/Ahd/2024 that case, the Trib decisions, held that condone delay and assessee otherwise s 115BAA. 4.2 The present cas clearly exercised the income, computed ta Form No. 10-IC alb defect and does not compliance is eviden particularly when e provisions not be de defects. The Hon’ble the purpose and sub procedural prescripti operate as a fetter on 4.3 In view of the fo of the Co-ordinate Be hold that the CPC Sharus ITA d counsel relied upon the deci he Tribunal in Mahalaxmi Aspha (A.Y. 2020-21), where a similar bunal, after examining variou appellate authorities have inh accept the belated Form No. 1 satisfies the statutory requirem se stands on identical footing. Th e option for section 115BAA in ax accordingly, and thereafter f beit belatedly. The omission w go to the root of eligibility. Wh nt, procedural lapses must be v equity and justice demand enied on account of inadverte Supreme Court has repeatedly bstance of a statutory provisio ions, which are directory in na n legitimate claims. oregoing and respectfully follow ench in Mahalaxmi Asphalt Pvt. and the learned CIT(A) were Steel Products Pvt. Ltd 5 A No. 4903/MUM/2025 ision of the Co- alt Pvt. Ltd., ITA r issue arose. In us High Court herent power to 10-IC when the ments of section he assessee had n the return of filed the correct was a technical here substantive viewed liberally, that beneficial ent and curable held that when on are satisfied, ature, must not wing the decision Ltd. (supra), we not justified in denying the assesse failure to file Form No 4.4 We accordingly Assessing Officer to subject to verificati substantive conditio ground of appeal of th 5. In the result, statistical purposes. Order pronoun (RAJ KUMAR C JUDICIAL M Mumbai; Dated: 15/12/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.
Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.
////
Sharus
ITA ee’s option under section 115
o. 10-IC within the prescribed ti set aside the impugned order accept Form No. 10-IC filed b ion of the assessee’s compli ons prescribed under section he assessee is allowed for statis the appeal of the assessee nced in the open Court on 15
-
S
CHAUHAN)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA ded to :
BY ORDER
(Assistant Re
ITAT, Mu
Steel Products Pvt. Ltd
6
A No. 4903/MUM/2025
5BAA solely for ime.
r and direct the by the assessee, iance with the n 115BAA. The tical purposes.
is allowed for /12/2025. KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER
R, gistrar) umbai