ODYSSEY CORPORATION LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 807/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 June 2025AY 2021-228 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of Section 115BAA of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for taxation under Section 115BAA while filing its return and subsequently furnished Form 10IC in physical mode before the jurisdictional AO. The Tribunal referred to CBDT Circular No. 6 of 2022, which condoned the delay in filing Form 10IC for AY 2020-21, provided certain conditions were met. The Tribunal found that the assessee met these conditions: the return was filed before the extended due date, the option for Section 115BAA was exercised in the ITR, and Form 10IC was furnished within the time limit prescribed in the circular, albeit in physical mode. The Tribunal considered the judicial pronouncements on the issue and concluded that the assessee should be granted the benefit of Section 115BAA. The jurisdictional AO was directed to allow the benefit. The appeals were allowed. The issue of the appellate order being bad in law or ex-parte was implicitly set aside by allowing the substantive issue.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Odyssey Corporation Ltd., filed appeals against the orders of the Learned Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for Assessment Years 2020-21 and 2021-22. The appeals challenged the denial of the benefit of Section 115BAA of the Income-tax Act, 1961. For AY 2020-21, the assessee filed its return at nil income, but a demand of Rs. 52,96,260/- was created by the CPC under Section 143(1) for denying the benefit of Section 115BAA, as Form 10IC was not filed before the due date. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to non-compliance with notices. The assessee then appealed to the ITAT. The procedural history for AY 2021-22 is identical.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appellate order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law, illegal, and without jurisdiction, being arbitrary and perverse, and in breach of statutory provisions? (Question of law) 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order, failing to appreciate that the non-attendance/non-reply was due to reasons beyond the assessee's control? (Question of mixed law and fact) 3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO in denying the benefit of Section 115BAA of the Act, and consequently assessing income under Section 115JB, thereby raising a demand? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: - The appellate order is bad in law and without jurisdiction. - The ex-parte order was passed erroneously. - The denial of Section 115BAA benefit was incorrect. The intimation under Section 143(1) was beyond the AO's competence. The claim did not fall under Section 143(1)(a). The issue of allowability of Section 115BAA is debatable. The computation of taxable income was arbitrary. - The benefit of Section 115BAA should be granted as the return was filed on time, the option was exercised in the ITR, and Form 10IC was filed physically before the jurisdictional AO on 10.01.2022. Reliance was placed on CBDT Circular No. 6 of 2022, which condoned the delay in filing Form 10IC for AY 2020-21. Reliance was also placed on decisions in PCIT v/s KGY Glass Industries (P.) Ltd. and PCIT v/s Fastner Commodeal (P.) Ltd. Revenue's Contentions: - The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities, stating that Form 10IC was required to be submitted electronically, which was not done. Therefore, the benefit of Section 115BAA was rightly denied as the conditions of the CBDT circular were not satisfied.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 115BAA,Section 115JB,Section 143(1),Section 143(1)(a),Section 139(1),Section 250,Section 119(2)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SMT. RENU JAUHRI

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi a/w Ms. Dinkle, Shri Yogesh Kumar
For Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar
Hearing: 08.05.2025Pronounced: 30.06.2025

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 808/MUM/2025
ITA No. 807/MUM/2025

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

& 807/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2020-21 & 2021-22 Odyssey Corporation Ltd. Mumbai आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH :- These two appeals are filed by the assessee against the orders of the Learned Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Ahmedabad-2 [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2020-21 & 2021-22.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal for both the years: AY 2020-21

1. THE ORDER IS BAD IN LAW, ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION 1.1 In the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the appellate order framed by the Additional / Joint Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) - 2, Ahmedabad [Ld. CIT (A)'] is bad in law, illegal and without jurisdiction, as the same is framed in breach of the statutory provisions of the Income - tax Act, 1961 ['the Act'] and the scheme and as otherwise also is not in accordance with the law. (ii) Without prejudice to the generality of the above, the appellate order so passed is bad in law, illegal and void as the same is arbitrary and perverse.

2. EX-PARTE ORDER 2.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in passing the order ex - parte. 2.2 While doing so, the Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the non attendance /non-reply was for the reasons not attributable to the Appellant/beyond the control of the Appellant and not deliberate or intentional. 2.3 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, no such action was called for. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE

3. DENIAL OF THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 115BAA OF THE ACT 3.1 In the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru ["the A.O."] in issuing the intimation u/s. 143 (1) of the Act, denying the benefit of section 115BAA of the Act.

& 807/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2020-21 & 2021-22 Odyssey Corporation Ltd. Mumbai 3.2 While doing do, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the A.O. in assessing the income of the Appellant u/s. 115JB of the Act at Rs. 2,67,74,195/- and computing tax payable of Rs. 44,69,148/- u/s. 115JB of the Act, thereby raising demand of Rs. 52,96,260/-. 3.3 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, no such denial of the benefit to the Appellant was called for. 3.4 Without prejudice to the generality of the above, the Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that - (i) The intimation issued by the A.O. was beyond his power/competence u/s. 143 (1) of the Act; (ii) The claim of the Appellant does not fall under any of the limbs of section 143(1)(a) of the Act and such a claim could not be treated as an incorrect claim; (iii) In any case and without prejudice, the issue of allowability of the deduction u/s. 115BAA is highly debatable in nature and as such no adjustment in this regard could have been made by the A.O. in an intimation u/s. 143 (1) of the Act. 3.5 Without prejudice to the above, assuming not admitting that the denial of the benefit of section 115BAA of the Act was proper, the Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the computation of the taxable income was arbitrary, excessive and not in accordance with the law. AY 2021-22 “1. THE ORDER IS BAD IN LAW, ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION 1.1 In the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the appellate order framed by the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) - 2. Ahmedabad ['Ld. CIT (A)'] is bad in law, illegal and without jurisdiction, as the same is framed in breach of the statutory provisions of the Income tax Act, 1961 ['the Act'] and the scheme and as otherwise also is not in accordance with the law. (ii) Without prejudice to the generality of the above, the appellate order so passed is bad in law, illegal and void as the same is arbitrary and perverse.

2. EX-PARTE ORDER 2.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in passing the order ex-parte. 2.2 While doing so, the Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the non attendance /non - reply was for the reasons not attributable to the Appellant / beyond the control of the Appellant and not deliberate or intentional. 2.3 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law. no such action was called for. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE 3. DENIAL OF THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 115BAA OF THE ACT & 807/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2020-21 & 2021-22 Odyssey Corporation Ltd. Mumbai 3.1 In the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru ["the A.O."] in issuing the intimation u/s. 143 (1) of the Act, denying the benefit of section 115BAA of the Act. 3.2 While doing do, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the A.O. in assessing the income of the Appellant u/s. 115JB of the Act at Rs. 8,68,06,559/- and computing tax payable of Rs. 1,44,89,751/- u/s. 115JB of the Act, thereby raising demand of Rs. 1,78,59,660/-. 3.3 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, no such denial of the benefit to the Appellant was called for. 3.4 Without prejudice to the generality of the above, the Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that - (i) The intimation issued by the A.O. was beyond his power/competence u/s. 143 (1) of the Act; (ii) The claim of the Appellant does not fall under any of the limbs of secition 143(1)(a) of the Act and such a claim could not be treated as an incorrect claim: (iii) In any case and without prejudice, the issue of allowability of the deduction u/s. 115BAA is highly debatable in nature and as such no adjustment in this regard could have been made by the A.O. in an intimation u/s. 143 (1) of the Act. 3.5 Without prejudice to the above, assuming not admitting that the denial of the benefit of section 115BAA of the Act was proper, the Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the computation of the taxable income was arbitrary, excessive and not in accordance with the law.

3.

Since identical issues are involved in these appeals, these are being disposed of by a common order, and for AY 2020-21 is taken as the lead case. The sole substantive issue relates to the denial of the benefit of Section 115BAA of the Act. ITA No. 808/Mum/2025 for AY 2020-21 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return at nil income for AY 2020-21 on 06.02.2021 well before the extended due date of 15.02.2021.

& 807/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2020-21 & 2021-22 Odyssey Corporation Ltd. Mumbai The return was processed u/s 143(1) and a demand of Rs. 52,96,260/- was created by the CPC vide intimation dated 18.12.2021. The assessee was denied the benefit of Section 115BAA of the Act, which had been claimed in the return, but the requisite Form 10IC was not filed before the due date.

5.

Aggrieved with the order of the CPC, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). As no compliance was made by the assessee to various notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A), he proceeded to dismiss the appeal vide order dated 17.01.2025. The assessee has preferred an appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) before the Tribunal.

6.

Before us, Ld. AR has submitted that the benefit of section 115BAA was duly claimed while furnishing the return of income and a copy of the relevant extract of ITR 6 has also been filed. Subsequently, the requisite Form 10IC was also filed in physical mode before the jurisdictional AO on 10.01.2022, a copy of which has also been placed before us. Ld. AR has placed reliance on the CBDT circular No. 6 of 2022 issued on 17.03.2022, vide which delay in filing of Form 10IC for AY 2020-21 was condoned. In view of these facts and circumstances, Ld. AR argued that the assessee should be granted the benefit of the provisions of Section 115BAA as requisite compliance has been made in terms of the CBDT circular. Ld. AR has also placed reliance on various decisions of the coordinate benches, wherein the benefit of Section 115BAA has been allowed to the & 807/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2020-21 & 2021-22 Odyssey Corporation Ltd. Mumbai assessees under similar circumstances. Specifically, in the case of PCIT v/s KGY Glass Industries (P.) Ltd. (2024) 464 ITR 129 (Guj.), it has been held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of Section 115BAA, where Form 10IC could not be filed electronically due to a technical problem on the portal, but a physical copy of the Form 10-IC was filed within the extended due date provided in the CBDT circular dated 17.03.2022. Similarly, in PCIT v/s Fastner Commodeal (P.) Ltd. (2024) 172 taxmann.com 573 (Cal.), the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court allowed the assessee’s claim of benefit u/s 115BAA on the basis of the option given in the ITR, even though Form 10IC was not filed at all. In light of the above factual matrix and the judicial pronouncements, Ld. AR has vehemently argued for allowing the claim of benefit of Section 115BAA of the Act.

7.

On the other hand, Ld. DR has strongly relied on the orders of the lower authorities and has pointed out that the assessee was required to submit Form 10IC in electronic mode, which has not been done. Accordingly, the benefit of Section 115BAA was rightly denied in this case as the requisite condition of the CBDT circular was not satisfied.

8.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the documents placed before us. Admittedly, the assessee had opted for taxation u/s 115BAA of the Act while filing its return. Subsequently, Form 10IC was also submitted in physical & 807/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2020-21 & 2021-22 Odyssey Corporation Ltd. Mumbai mode before the jurisdictional AO. Relevant portion of the circular dated 17.03.2022 states as under: “3. On consideration of the matter, with a view to avoid genuine hardship to the domestic companies in exercising the option u/s 115BAA of the Act, the Central Board of Direct Taxes, in exercise of the powers conferred under section 119(2)(b) of the Act, hereby directs that:- The delay in filing of Form 10-IC as per Rule 21AE of the Rules for the previous year relevant to A.Y 2020-21 is condoned in cases where the following conditions are satisfied: i) The return of income for AY 2020-21 has been filed on or before the due date specified under section 139(1) of the Act; ii) The assessee company has opted for taxation u/s 115BAA of the Act in (e) of "Filing Status" in "Part A-GEN" of the Form of Return of Income ITR-6 and iii) Form 10-IC is filed electronically on or before 30.06.2022 or 3 months from the end of the month in which this Circular is issued, whichever is later.”

9.

In the present case, the assessee has filed its return before the extended due date u/s 139(1) of the Act. It has opted for taxation u/s 115BAA in the relevant column of the ITR form. It has also furnished Form 10IC, though in physical mode, within the time limit prescribed in the above-mentioned circular.

10.

In view of the above facts as well as in the light of various judicial pronouncements on the issue, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee is entitled to claim the benefit of taxation u/s 115BAA of the Act. Accordingly, the jurisdictional AO is directed to allow the benefit of Section 115BAA of the Act. The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed.

& 807/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2020-21 & 2021-22 Odyssey Corporation Ltd. Mumbai AY 2021-22 11. As the issue involved and facts and circumstances are identical, the above decision will apply mutatis mutandis to AY 2021-22 also. 12. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.06.2025.

More judgments on Section 115BAA

All 225 judgments and leading authorities on Section 115BAA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →