ROLOPO ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,TIRUPPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), TIRUPPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 933/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2026AY 2023-245 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the delay of 22 minutes in uploading Form-10IC was due to technical glitches and no prejudice was caused to the department. Therefore, the benefit of Section 115BAA should have been granted.

What were the facts?

The assessee company filed its return of income claiming the benefit of Section 115BAA by uploading Form-10IC with a delay of 22 minutes due to technical glitches. The CPC denied this benefit, and subsequent rectification and appeal to the CIT(A) were also rejected.

What were the issues?

Whether the benefit of Section 115BAA can be denied solely due to a minor delay in filing Form-10IC, especially when caused by technical issues and without prejudice to the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 115BAA,Section 143(1),Section 154,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHENNAI BENCHES, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE ABY T VARKEY & HON’BLE INTURI RAMA RAO

For Respondent: Ms. R Anitha,Addl.CIT

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, चे�नई पीठ�, चे�नई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI BENCHES, CHENNAI BENCH: C BEFORE HON’BLE ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.933/CHNY/2026 िनधा�रण वष�/Assmt. Year: 2023-24) ROLOPO ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. ITO, WARD-1(1) 6/75, RANGASAMUTHIRAM, TIRUPPUR-641602, TAMIL PANICKAMPATTI B.O., Vs. NADU PALLADAM,, TIRUPPUR-641664, TAMIL NADU (अपीलाथ� Appellant) (��थ� Respondent) Permanent Account Number of Assessee: AALCR2654R िनधा�रती �ारा/Assessee represented by: Mr.S.Sridhar (Erode) Advocate राज� व �ारा/Revenue represented by: Ms. R Anitha,Addl.CIT

सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusion of hearing: 21-04-2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement: 21-05-2026 आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the Assessee directed against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], dated 11.12.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the 2023-24.

2.

The Assessee raised the following grounds of appeal : “1) The Impugned Order is bad, erroneous and unsustainable in law

2) The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal with a cryptic order, without considering the circumstances of the case, narrow view taken by the CPC and the prejudice to which the Appellant was put.

3) Without prejudice, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) also erred in failing to consider the settled position that filing Form 10IC within time is directory only and not mandatory and that the benefit u/s.115BAA could not be denied on such pretext, when it was available while processing the ITR. [Relying on 296 Taxman 180 (Gujarat) and ITANo.30/Chny/2025 dated 07/07/2025]

4) Without prejudice, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) also erred in failing to consider that the delay in filing Form 10IC was only 22 minutes and that the Appellant has made substantial compliance to Section 115BAA by mentioning that the option for beneficial tax rate was exercised in the ITR also, which was filed within the due date.

And for all other reasons that may be adduced at the time of hearing, the Appellant humbly prays that the appeal be admitted, considered and justice be rendered.”

3.

Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant is a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act. The Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2023-24 was filed on 31.10.2023 disclosing the income of Rs.2,79,35,844/-. The appellant also claimed the benefit of provisions of section 115BAA of the Act by filing the required Form-10IC uploaded with a delay of 22 minutes. The said Return of Income was processed by CPC u/s.143(1) of the Act vide intimation dated 27.05.2024 denying the benefit of Concessional Tax Regime u/s.115BAA of the Act on the ground that the requisite Form-10IC was filed after due date. On receipt of the said intimation, appellant had moved petition u/s.154 of the Act and the same came to be rejected vide order dated 29.04.2025.

4.

Being aggrieved by the said rectification order, an appeal was filed before the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal) who vide impugned order confirmed the action of the CPC.

5.

Being aggrieved by the order of ld.CIT(A), the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal.

6.

The ld.Counsel submits that the delay in uploading Form-10IC had occurred on account of Technical Glitches in the Portal resulting in 22 minutes delay. He also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sikkim Ferro Alloys Ltd. Vs. CBDT [2026] 182 taxmann.com 99 (Bombay).

7.

On the other hand, ld.Sr.DR opposed the above submissions.

8.

We heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The issue that arises for our consideration is whether CPC was justified in denying the Concessional Tax Regime u/s.115BAA of the Act merely on the ground that there was a delay of 22 minutes in uploading the Form-10IC of the Act. It was submitted that the delay had occurred in uploading Form-10IC on account of Technical Glitches in the Portal. However, it is an admitted fact that the appellant has filed the requisite Form before processing the Return of Income by CPC. No prejudice is caused to the Department on account of belated uploading filing of Form-10IC, therefore, the CPC ought to have taken cognizance of 10IC and granted the benefit of Concessional Tax Regime u/s.115BAA of the Act, accordingly, the matter is restored to the file of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer with a direction to process the Return of Income u/s.143(1) taking into consideration the Form-10IC filed by the appellant.

9.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 21st May, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (ABY T VARKEY) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Chennai; �दनांक / Dated : 21st May, 2026 SGR, Sr.PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The CIT Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem. 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, “सी” ब�च, चे�नई / DR, ITAT Chennai. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5.

More judgments on Section 115BAA

All 225 judgments and leading authorities on Section 115BAA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →