GRIHANI FABRICS INDIA PVT LTD,SURAT vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(1), SURAT

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the law on the matter, the CPC has erred in passing an intimation order u/s. 143(1) of the Act, without

Being aggrieved by the intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee for statistical purpose.

The Ld. Authorised Representative (in short “the Ld. AR”) submitted that the CPC erred in passing an intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act without providing the assessee with an opportunity of being heard on adjustments made by the CPC. The Ld. AR further submitted that the CPC has not considered that the Form 10 ID filed by the assessee u/s 115BAB of the Act and the assessee’s income cannot be taxed u/s 115BAA of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee should have been allowed the benefit of taxation available u/s 115BAB of the Act.

The Ld. Departmental Representative (in short “Ld. DR”) submitted that the assessee has filed Form 10-ID afterwards and thus proviso to sub- section 5 of section 115BAB categorially gives imbarbo for not granting taxation u/s 115BAB to the assessee. In fact, in earlier year the assessee has filed Form 10-IC. The Ld. DR also filed the short note/written note as follows: “1. At the outset, the Assessee would like to submit that the matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the aforesaid case of Wipro, pertained to exemption claimed u/s. 10B of the erstwhile Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), whereas the issue under dispute in the case of Assessee Company relates to denial of beneficial tax rate u/s. 115BAB of the Act. The same is duly noted at para 11 and 12 of the said order. Relevant extract of the same is placed below for ready reference.

The Ld. AR, in rejoinder, relied upon the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in case of Brahmos Realty (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO (2025) 178 taxmann.com 139 (Mum-Trib.) and ACIT vs. Magik Kraft (P.) Ltd. (2025) 179 taxmann.com 632 (Mum-Trib.). The Ld. AR submitted that the decision of Wipro Ltd. (supra) will not be applicable in assessee’s case. 4

We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. The assessee though filed Form 10-IC for the earlier year in the present assessment year, the assessee filed Form 10-ID as per their submissions, but from the perusal of records it can be seen that the assessee filed Form 10ID on 28-09-2022 i.e. for AY 2022-23. For AY 2023-24, the assessee filed return of income on 28-09-2023 and Form 10ID was not filed, but Form 3CA-3CD was filed. As per Section 115BAB, the assessee has to comply with the conditions contained in sub section 2, and these conditions are set out in the said sub section. The Ld. AR relied upon sub section 5, but it will not help the assessee as Section 115BAA sub section 5 proviso clearly provided that in case of a person where the option exercised by it under Section 115BAB has been rendered invalid due to violation of conditions contained in sub-clause 2 or sub-clause 3 of clause A or clause B of sub section 2 of said section. Such person may exercise option under this section and once the option has been exercised for any previous year, it cannot be subsequently withdrawn from the same or any other previous year. Therefore, Section 115BAA and Section 115BAB are the guidelines and should be taken into account together. The decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Wipro (supra) has not been taken into account by the decisions of the Mumbai Tribunal. Thus, the contention of the Ld. DR appears to be justifiable.

In result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.