INTELLIQUITY CONSULTING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण�ायपीठमुंबईम�। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM I.T.A. No.3208/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2021-22) Intelliquity Consulting Services Circle 4(2)(1) Private Limited Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve 1501, 15th Floor, One Lodha Vs. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai- Place, Senapati Bapat Marg, 400020 Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 PAN: AAEC18975P Assessee- अपीलाथ� / Appellant Revenue-��थ�/ Respondent :

Assessee by : Shri Mandar Vaidya : Shri Ajay Soneji, Sr. DR Revenue by : 15.06.2026 Date of Hearing : 31.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement

O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, AM: This appeal is preferred by the assessee, against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals,ADDL/JCIT (A), Kochi [in short, “the Ld. CIT(A)”], dated 05.03.2025 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2021-22,arising out of intimation under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “the Act”] dated 24.08.2022, passed by Centralized Processing Center, Bengaluru [in short,“CPC”].

ITA No. 3208/Mum/2026 Intelliquity Consulting Services Private Limited 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1. The learned CTT(A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal and confirming the adjustment made by CPC under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without appreciating that the impugned adjustment was beyond the permissible scope of section 143(1)(a). 2. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) while processing the return under section 143(1), without appreciating that the issue arose merely on account of an alleged mismatch between Schedule of and the Tax Audit Report The Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that: The assessee had already Suo motu disallowed a sum of ₹ 11,000 under the head "any other disallowance" under section 36 in the return of income. However, the CPC has erroneously made a double disallowance, by again adding the same amount under section 36(1)(iii) based on the Tax Audit Report. This resulted in duplication of disallowance, which is purely a reconciliation issue. It is further submitted that: Such mismatch between Schedule OI and Tax Audit Report is a debatable issue requiring verification and reconciliation of facts. Adjustment under section 143(1) is limited to prima facie adjustments and does not permit examination of debatable issues or duplication arising from reporting differences. Accordingly, the disallowance made under section 36(1)(iii) while processing under section 143(1) is bad in law and liable to be deleted. 3. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the application of 30% tax rate instead of 25%. The appellant is eligible for 25% tax rate as turnover in FY 2018-19 was below 2400 crores. Relevant financial statements of previous year were submitted but not considered. The higher rate applied is contrary to law and should be corrected. It is well settled that substance should prevail over form, and therefore, a mere technical error or incorrect option exercised in the return cannot override the assessee's legitimate entitlement under the Act.” 3. At the outset, it is noticed that the present appeal is filed with a delay of 320 days, for which the assessee has furnished an affidavit along with a petition for condonation of delay. The reasons for delay as stated to be on account of obtaining proper professional advice and consultation. It is submitted that the assessee-company was in process of seeking expert opinion on the matter which took considerable time. It is submitted that the delay is neither intentional nor

ITA No. 3208/Mum/2026 Intelliquity Consulting Services Private Limited deliberate and beyond the control of the assessee due to circumstances. Even otherwise, there is nothing on record to substantiate that there was any deliberate attempt or negligence on the part of assessee in occurrence of the delay in filing of the appeal. We therefore are of the considered view that delay in the present case needs to be condoned in the interest of justice.

ITA No. 3208/Mum/2026 Intelliquity Consulting Services Private Limited wherein the identical issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal with the following observations: “4. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is the say of Id. Counsel appearing for the assessee before us that as per the Finance Act itself a company having turnover of less than Rs.250 crores has to pay tax at the rate of 25%. He submitted, merely because the assessee has applied the tax rate of 25% referring to a wrong provision, that by itself would not empower the Department to tax at a higher tax, which is not in accordance with the Finance Act. Having taken note of submissions of the assessee, we find that as per paragraph E of the Finance Act applicable to the relevant assessment year, the applicable tax rate for a domestic company having turnover of less than Rs.250 crores is 25%. When the Finance Act itself has fixed tax rates for different categories of assessee's that has to be strictly followed. Merely because the assessee has referred to a wrong provision, while applying tax rate of 25%, a higher tax rate cannot be applied. The aforesaid view of ours gets support from the following decisions of the co- ordinate bench: 1. Bholanath Precision Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (in ITA No. 1997/Mum./2022 vide order dated 23.11.2022) 2. Neptunus Power Plant Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. ADIT (in ITA No. 2796/Mum/2023 vide order dated 18.12.2023) 5. In view of the aforesaid, we direct the A.O. to tax the income of the assessee by applying the rate of 25% as against 30%. Since, in course of hearing, Id. Counsel for the assessee has not pressed any other ground, they are deemed to be not pressed, hence, dismissed.” 7. At the outset during the hearing, Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that adopting provisions of section 115BA, while filing the ITR is a technical mistake and for that reason the provisions of law cannot be used against the assessee. According to the Finance Act, the companies having turnover of Rs.400 crores during the AY 2021-22 are to be taxed at the rate of 25% and, therefore, even if the assessee has inadvertently opted for some wrong provision of the Act, the assessee cannot be penalized for that. It was therefore the prayer that the tax rate of 25%, which is as per provisions of the Act mandated for the assesses having turnover below Rs.400 crores has to be applied in the present case.

ITA No. 3208/Mum/2026 Intelliquity Consulting Services Private Limited 8. Per contra, Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of Revenue Authorities.

Order pronounced in the open court on 31-08-2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) (ARUN KHODPIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated : 31-08-2026. Ankit K., Sr. PS

ITA No. 3208/Mum/2026 Intelliquity Consulting Services Private Limited Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 4. Guard File 5. CIT

BY ORDER,

(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai