GANPATI HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 10(1), DELHI, DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh, Accountant Member ITA No. 7542/Del/2025 :Asstt. Year: 2024-25 Ganpati Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, C/o Shah Surendra & Associates, CA, Ward-10(1), 208, Anukampa-II, M. I. Road, New Delhi-110002 Jaipur, Rajasthan-302001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACG0953H Assessee by: Sh. Dinesh Gupta, CA Revenue by: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 24.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 27.05.2026 ORDER Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member: The appeal is directed against the order dated 07.10.2025 of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Indore (hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”), passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) wherein minimum alternative tax (MAT) u/s 115JB @15% plus Cess @ 4% by way of adjustment u/s 143(1) for not filing the Form 10(1C) despite opting section 115BAA of the Act by the assessee was confirmed.

2 ITA No. 7542/Del/2025 Ganpati Holdings Pvt. Ltd.

prescribed u/s 139 of the Act. In the Income tax return form at page no 1 in "Part A-Gen" it duly opted to be taxed under the provisions of section 115 BAA. The company had a book profit of Rs.37,83,532/- whereas total income was Nil due to brought forward losses. As provision of section 115JAA is not applicable on companies opting to be taxed under the provisions of section 115BAA, no MAT u/s 115JA was paid on the book profits. The assessee company was under bonafide impression that Form 10-IC has been filed on 06.10.2022 vide acknowledgement number 619257181061022 and this fact was duly mentioned in the return Form. Accordingly no Form 10-IC was filed in the relevant assessment year. The company on receipt of intimation u/s 143(1) noted that benefit of section 115BAA has not been given and tax u/s 115 JAA @ 15% on the book profits of the company along with cess @ 4% and interest has been charged and a total demand of Rs. 5,29,720/- (after adjusting TDS and advance tax) has been raised. The appellant company thereafter checked its earlier records and found that Form 10-IC has been inadvertently left to be filed and the date of filing and acknowledgement number does not relate to the appellant company. It thereafter filed 10IC on 15.02.2025 and filed an application u/s 154 for rectification as option to be taxed u/s 115BAA was duly opted in the return filed for the relevant assessment year. However, CPC did not grant the

3 ITA No. 7542/Del/2025 Ganpati Holdings Pvt. Ltd.

benefit of section 115BAA while passing the order u/s 154 on 04.03.2025.

4 ITA No. 7542/Del/2025 Ganpati Holdings Pvt. Ltd.

471 (SC)] and the CBDT Circular No. 9/2015 dated 09.06.2015 which emphasizes a liberal approach in condonation matters. 1.3 That the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that denial of the benefit of section 115BAA leads to taxation at higher rates and imposes an unintended hardship on the assessee for a purely procedural default, contrary to the intent and purpose of the concessional tax regime introduced by the Finance Act, 2019.” 5. We have heard the ld. AR and the ld. DR and perused the material on record. The ld. AR at the very outset submitted that the case of the assessee is covered by the order of Delhi Tribunal in the case of KN Support Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, ITA No. 5774/Del/2024 order dated 29.08.2025. He has also relied the case of Mumbai Tribunal in Getinge Medical India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, ITA No. 4872/Mum/2024 13.03.2026 especially para 6.11 where similar issue has been decided in favour of the assessee.

5 ITA No. 7542/Del/2025 Ganpati Holdings Pvt. Ltd.

of the Form 10-1C came to its knowledge at the time of receipt of intimation u/s 143(1) and immediately filed the Form 10-1C on 15.02.2025 vide acknowledgement placed at page 6 of the paper book. It is further argued that filing of Form 10-1C beyond due date is not fatal to the assessee company for availing the benefit of section 115BAA as it is a mere procedural lapse and the substantial right of the assessee cannot be denied. It is further argued that the CBDT circular No. 17/2024 dated 18.11.2024 authorizes CIT/CCIT to condone the delay in filing the form 10-1C for A.Ys. 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23 on fulfilling certain conditions which assessee had already fulfilled. It is argued that though the said circular which pertains to A.Ys. 2020-21 to 2022-23 is not applicable for the relevant year but the spirit of circular should extend to other years as well because the assessee company satisfied all the conditions listed in the said circular as it has filed the return on 04.09.2024 much earlier from the extended due date i.e. 15.11.2024. It is therefore submitted that the case of assessee is covered by the order of Delhi Tribunal in the case of KN Support Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra) and Mumbai Tribunal in Getinge Medical India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra). It is therefore prayed that the impugned order needs to be set aside and the adjustment made in the CPC needs to be deleted.

6 ITA No. 7542/Del/2025 Ganpati Holdings Pvt. Ltd.

“12. The Co-ordinate Bench of Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Aprameya Engineering Ltd. vs. ITO [TS-411- ITAT-2024(Ahd)) (refer Page No. 7-17 of CLC) wherein it was held that considering the principle of beneficial interpretation, the procedural requirements should not override substantive benefits. Hence, delay in filing of Form 10-IC, being a procedural requirement, should not invalidate the assessee's right to claim the benefit of Section 115BAA of the Act. It was further held that CBDT circulars extending due dates for filing of such forms in the earlier years indicate a degree of administrative flexibility and recognition that procedural lapses should not lead to denial of substantive benefits. The relevant extract of the judgement is reproduced as under: 8.1... “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 assessment proceeding, since there is no material objective to be achieved by the assessee in not e- filing the same, once the intent was very well declared in Form 3CD. 8.2. Considering the principle of beneficial interpretation, the procedural requirements should not override substantive benefits. The Courts have taken a lenient view on procedural lapses when substantive benefits are involved. SC ruling in the case of CIT v. G.M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd. reported in (2015) 376 ITR 456 emphasized that the making of a claim of deduction is mandatory, but timing is directory. Even

7 ITA No. 7542/Del/2025 Ganpati Holdings Pvt. Ltd.

if the claim is made during the assessment proceedings, such a claim is to be allowed. 8.3. After considering the submissions, the judicial precedents cited and specific facts of the case, we are of the opinion the delay in filing Form 10-IC, though a procedural requirement, should not invalidate the assessee's substantive right to the benefit of section 115BAA of the Act. 8.4. The CBDT's Circulars extending the due dates for filing such forms in earlier years indicate a recognition of such procedural difficulties. These Circulars indicate a degree of administrative flexibility and a recognition that procedural lapses should not necessarily lead to the denial of substantive benefits. Moreover, denying the benefit based solely on this lapse would be against the principles of equity and justice, especially when there is no dispute regarding the assessee's eligibility for the lower tax rate. 8.5. In light of the above, the Ground Number is allowed. Ground Number 2 is an alternative ground and, therefore, not adjudicated. Ground Numbers 3 and 4 are general in nature, which are also not adjudicated.” 13. The Co-ordinate Bench of Pune Tribunal in the case of Akshay (Akshay Devendra Biruri vs. DCIT, CPC [TS- 402-ITAT-2024(PUN)] (refer Page No. 18-21 of CLC) wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal held that in order to claim the benefit of the new tax regime, filing of Form 101E under Rule 21AG of the Rules, is not a mandatory requirement but it is rather directory in nature. The Hon'ble Tribunal directed the Revenue to allow the benefit of the new tax regime by taking into consideration the Form 101E as the same was available with the Revenue at the time of processing the return of income. The relevant paragraph of the said ruling is reproduced herewith for your Honour's ready reference: 7. “We heard the Id. Sr. DR and perused the relevant material on record. The solitary issue that arises for our consideration in the present appeal is whether the CPC was justified in denying the benefit of New Tax Regime. Admittedly, the appellant had failed to submit the prescribed Form No.101E in order to claim the benefit of New Tax Regime before the due date for filing the return of income. However, the appellant had filed the said form on 10.01.2024 on which date the CPC had processed the return of income u/s, 143(1)(a) denying the benefit of New Tax Regime. In

8 ITA No. 7542/Del/2025 Ganpati Holdings Pvt. Ltd.

any event, it is not a mandatory requirement for filing of Form No.101E but directory in nature. The Form No.101E was very much available with the CPC and the CPC ought to have considered the same allowing the benefit of New Tax Regime. Therefore, we direct the CPC to amend the intimation by taking into consideration the Form No.101E, as the same was available with the CPC at the time of processing the return of income. We order accordingly.” 14. The Co-ordinate Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Krishna Gopal Diwvedi HUF [TS-140-ITAT- 2025(Mum)] wherein the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal held as under: 7.9. “Coming to the instant case, we observe that till the date of processing the return filed by the Assessee for the A.Y. 202223, Form No. 101E for exercising the option for availing the benefits of new tax regime filed on 10-01-2022 for the AY 2021-22 was neither withdrawn nor rejected or made invalid but the same was still available or effective before the AO during the assessment proceedings or passing the Assessment order and therefore in our considered view, the return filed by the Assessee should have been considered, under the new tax regime provisions. Thus, the Assessee is entitled for the benefit of new tax regime and consequently the addition is deleted. Resultantly, the appeal 1.e. ITA no. 3482/M/2024 filed by the Assessee is allowed." 15. In previous years, the CBDT extended the due dates for filing such forms indicate a recognition of such procedural difficulties. These Circulars indicate a degree of administrative flexibility and a recognition that procedural lapses should not necessarily lead to the denial of substantive benefits. Moreover, denying the benefit based solely on this lapse would be against the principles of equity and justice, especially when there is no dispute regarding the assessee's eligibility for the lower tax rate. Considering the principle of beneficial interpretation, the procedural requirements should not override substantive benefits. The Courts have taken a lenient view on procedural lapses when substantive benefits are involved. Supreme Court rulings always emphasized that the making of a claim of deduction is mandatory, but timing/format is directory. 16. In view of the above facts and by respectfully following judicial pronouncements cited above, in our considered opinion assessee should not be deprived from

9 ITA No. 7542/Del/2025 Ganpati Holdings Pvt. Ltd.

the concessional rate of tax available in the statute merely for the procedural lapse. Accordingly, we direct the AO to compute the tax at the concessional rate as per Section 115BAA of the Act. The ground of appeal Nos. 1 to 4 taken by assessee are allowed.” 9. We further relied upon the order of the Mumbai Tribunal in ITA No. 4872/Mum/2024 (supra). The relevant portion of the order at para 6.11 has held as under:

“6.11. In view of the foregoing discussion, thisTribunal holds that, the delay in filing Form 10-IC is purely procedural and does not invalidate the substantive exercise of option under section 115BAA, which was clearly made in the return of income and acted upon by the assessee while computing its total income. Having regard to the fact that all the conditions prescribed under section 115BAA stand duly complied with and there being no prejudice caused to the Revenue, the delay in filing Form 10-IC is condoned. The Ld.AO is accordingly directed to accept the assessee’s option under section 115BAA and recompute the tax liability at the concessional rate in accordance with law. Accordingly, the ground No.3 raised by the assessee stands allowed.” 10. In view of the above discussion, we have noticed that the issue before us is also identical and similar as decided by the Delhi Tribunal in ITA No. 5774/Del/2025 (supra) and Mumbai Tribunal in ITA No. 4872/Mum/2024 (supra). Therefore, respectfully following the judgment of the Delhi Tribunal and Mumbai Tribunal, we are of the considered opinion that ld. Lower authorities has wrongfully denied the benefit of section 115BAA to the assessee because late filing of the Form 10- 1C/non-filing of the Form 10-1C at appropriate time was a mere procedural irregularity and the procedural non-compliance

10 ITA No. 7542/Del/2025 Ganpati Holdings Pvt. Ltd.

of procedure cannot deprive the assessee of its substantive right when all other conditions are fulfilled in the case of the assessee for claiming the benefit of u/s 115BAA of the Act. In the given facts and circumstances, we condone the delay in filing the Form 10-1C by the assessee. We direct the AO to grant the benefit to the assessee u/s 115BAA of the Act and compute the total income accordingly. The grounds raised in the appeal are accordingly allowed.