VANSHIKA BUILDTECH LIMITED vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-7 & ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/4138/2024HC DelhiDLHC01014504202420 January 2025Bench: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court, with the consent of both parties, set aside the impugned order dated 11.08.2023. The Court permitted the petitioner to make a fresh application before the competent officer. It was clarified that if the application is made within two weeks from the date of the order, the competent officer shall consider it on its merits, taking into account the provisions of Circular No. 17 of 2024 dated 18.11.2024. The Court did not decide the merits of the original application for condonation of delay but remanded the matter for fresh consideration based on the subsequent circular. The present petition was disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vanshika Buildtech Limited, challenged an order dated 11.08.2023 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-7, which rejected their application for condonation of delay in filing Form 10(IC) electronically. This form was required to avail a special tax rate under Section 115BAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment year (AY) 2020-21. The petitioner also sought modification of an intimation dated 23.12.2021 under Section 143(1). AY 2020-21 was the first year Section 115BAA was operational, requiring timely filing of the application. Subsequently, CBDT issued Circular No. 17 of 2024 on 18.11.2024, empowering officers to consider condonation of delay for Form 10(IC).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner's application for condonation of delay in filing Form 10(IC) for AY 2020-21 should be considered on merits, especially in light of the subsequent CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2024? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the delay in filing Form 10(IC) should be condoned, and their application should be considered in light of the newly issued CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2024, which provides a mechanism for dealing with such delayed applications. They sought a direction to the concerned officer to consider their application afresh. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through its counsel, fairly submitted that the parties did not have the benefit of the aforementioned circular at the time of the impugned order. The Revenue agreed to a remand of the matter to the concerned officer to consider the petitioner's application in light of the new circular.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 115BAA,Section 139(1),Section 119(2)(b),Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~36 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4138/2024 and CM APPL. 16931/2024 VANSHIKA BUILDTECH LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr Sumit K. Batra with Mr Manish Khurana and Ms Priyanka Jindal, Advocates. versus PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-7 & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr Sanjay Kumar, SSC with Ms Monica Benjamin and Ms Easha Kadian, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA O R D E R % 20.01.2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning an order dated 11.08.2023 passed by the concerned authority rejecting the petitioner’s application for condonation of delay in filing Form 10(IC) electronically for availing the benefit of a special rate of tax as provided under Section 115BAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) in respect of assessment year (AY) 2020-21. 2. The petitioner also seeks a consequent relief of modification of the intimation dated 23.12.2021 issued under Section 143(1) of the Act. The petitioner submits that AY 2020-21 was the first year of operation of Section 115BAA of the Act. Special rate of tax was available to certain assessees, subject to the assessee filing an application in a requisite manner, within the time as prescribed for filing of a return under Section 139(1) of the Act. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Central Board This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 23:06:31

of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has now issued a circular (being Circular No. 17 of 2024 dated 18.11.2024) under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, empowering the concerned officers viz. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax/ Commissioner of Income Tax, Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and Director General of Income Tax for considering and dealing with application for condonation of delay in filing Form 10(IC). 4. Mr. Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue fairly submits that the parties did not have the benefit of the aforementioned circular which has been issued subsequently and the matter may be remanded to the concerned officer to consider the petitioner’s application in the light of the aforementioned circular. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is agreeable to this course. 6. Consequently, with the consent of the parties, we set aside the impugned order dated 11.08.2023. We permit the petitioner to make an application before the competent officer. We further clarify that, if the application is made within a period of two weeks from date, the competent officer shall consider the same on merits including in the light of the Circular No. 17 of 2024 dated 18.11.2024. 7. The present petition is disposed of. Pending application also stands disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, ACJ TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J JANUARY 20, 2025 tr This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 23:06:31

More judgments on Section 115BAA

All 225 judgments and leading authorities on Section 115BAA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →