TRIVENI INTERCHEM PRIVATE LIMITED,VAPI vs. DCIT, VALSAD CIRCLE, VALSAD

ITA 1199/SRT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 September 2026AY 2022-2311 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Triveni Interchem Private Limited, filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2022-23 on October 10, 2022, opting for the concessional tax rate of 22% under Section 115BAA. The assessee also filed Form 10-IC belatedly on March 24, 2023. The CPC, Bengaluru, processed the return under Section 143(1) and made adjustments, including disallowances for delayed PF/ESIC payments (Rs. 69,217) and interest on late TDS (Rs. 42,588). Crucially, the CPC applied a higher tax rate of 30% instead of the opted 22%, leading to a demand of Rs. 38,79,640. Rectification requests filed by the assessee were rejected by the CPC. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed. The assessee then appealed to the ITAT.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided to address grounds 3, 4, 5, and 6 on merits, leaving grounds 1 and 2 undecided at this juncture. Regarding grounds 3 and 4, the Tribunal found that the assessee had suo motu disallowed the delayed payment of provident fund and ESIC, and interest on late TDS, in its return of income. Therefore, the disallowance by the AO was a duplication. Accordingly, grounds 3 and 4 were allowed. For grounds 5 and 6, concerning the application of the Section 115BAA tax rate and the belated filing of Form 10-IC, the Tribunal noted that the AO had outrightly not considered Form 10-IC filed on March 24, 2023. The Tribunal held that it would be appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the AO to consider the belatedly filed Form 10-IC and allow the Section 115BAA rate after verification of the substantive conditions. The assessee was to be given an opportunity of hearing. Thus, grounds 5 and 6 were partly allowed for statistical purposes. The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing a sufficient opportunity to be heard? 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without passing a speaking order? 3. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 69,217 on account of disallowance of delayed payment of Provident Fund and ESIC under Section 36(1)(va), when the assessee had already added it back in its return? 4. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 42,588 on account of disallowance of expenditure due to interest on late deposit of TDS and penalty charges under Section 37, when the assessee had already added it back in its return? 5. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the CPC in not considering the assessee's option for taxation at 22% under Section 115BAA and wrongly applying a 30% tax rate? 6. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the CPC in not condoning the belated filing of Form 10-IC and wrongly applying a 30% tax rate? Assessee's Contentions: - Grounds 1 & 2: CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without sufficient opportunity and without a speaking order. - Grounds 3 & 4: The additions made by the CPC were already offered for taxation by the assessee in its return, constituting a duplication. - Grounds 5 & 6: The CPC wrongly reversed the assessee's option for Section 115BAA taxation despite the return stating 'Yes' and subsequently applied a higher tax rate. The belated Form 10-IC should be considered, and the matter should be restored to the AO for verification of substantive conditions. Relied on principles of natural justice and decisions like Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. and Kranti Associates (P.) Ltd. Revenue's Contentions: - The CPC correctly denied the concessional tax regime under Section 115BAA because Form 10-IC was not filed within the prescribed time under Section 115BAA(5) read with Rule 21AE. Filing of Form 10-IC is the statutory mode. The CPC correctly applied normal provisions as no valid option was available. CPC cannot adjudicate disputed questions or presume compliance. Relied on the principle that statutory concessions require fulfillment of prescribed conditions. Distinguished the case of Shivam Wellness Pvt. Ltd.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(va),Section 37,Section 115BAA,Section 115BAA(5),Section 139(1),Section 143(1),Section 154,Section 226(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT

Before: MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRI B.M. BIYANI

Pronounced: 25.09.2026

PER : SUCHITRA KAMBLE, J M:

The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), ADDL/JCIT(A)-4, Delhi [in short “CIT(A)”] dated 12.09.2025 for the Assessment Year (in short “AY”) 2022-23. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in passing ex-parte order without giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard

2.

On the facts and

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 36(1)(va)

All 6,018 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(va) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →