SUPERTECH EV LIMITED,JHAJJAR vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, ROHTAK
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “B”, DELHI
Before: SH. S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SH. SUDHIR KUMARAssessment Year: 2024-25 Supertech EV Limited Plot No.150 Sector 16 Phase 1 Bahadurgarh Jhajjar Haryana-124507 PAN No.ABJCS1671E Vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru/ ITO Exemptions Ward Rohtak (APPELLANT)
PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ Addl/JCIT(A)-9
Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as “Ld.CIT(A)”] vide order dated
26-09-2025 pertaining to A.Y. 2024-25 arising out the assessment order dated 27-06-2025 under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act,1961, (in short ‘the Act’).
2. The assessee has raised the following grounds in appeal:
2
1. That under the facts and circumstances, the limitation passed is erroneous and bad in law.
2. That under the facts and circumstances of the case both the lower authorities erred in law as well as on merit in not allowing concessional rate of tax @ 22 % under section 115BAA of the Act.
3. That under the facts and circumstances of the case both the lower authorities erred in law as well as on merit in not considering the Form 10-IC filed after due date.
4. That under the facts and circumstances of the case no interest u/s 234B and 234C should have been charged without prejudice, interest charged is excessive.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2024-25 declaring a total income of Rs.6,85,34,000/-. In the ITR and Tax Audit Report the assessee clearly opted for the concessional tax regime under section 115BAA and computed tax accordingly at 22% plus applicable surcharge and cess. Due to a technical glitch on the ITBA portal at the time of filing of ITR Form 10-IC could not be uploaded. In order to proceed with the filing a junior staff member entered a fictitious acknowledgment number and date on the portal which was accepted without raising any validation error. This error was not corrected before the submission of the return of income. The return of income was processed under section 143(1) of the Act by CPC, which raised a demand of Rs.65,61,780/- under normal provisions ignoring the computation under section 115BAA of the Act. The assessee
3
filed the Form 10-IC promptly and submitted a rectification request under section 154 of the Act explaining the situation in good faith and requesting that the return be recomputed under section 115BAA of the Act. However, the CPC rejected the rectification application. Aggrieved the order from the CPC the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), relying the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CC vs.
Dilip Kumar & Company [2018] 95 taxmann.com 327/69 GST
239, vide his order dated 26-09-2025 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal.
4. The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the Form no.10-IC was not uploaded with in time due to mistake committed by the junior staff member. He further submitted that the error was inadvertently not corrected before the processing of the return.
He further submitted that the filing of Form No. 10-IC is mandatory but timing is directory. It is submitted that section 115BAA specifically gave an option to the assessee to opt for new tax regime. From tax calculated in ITR and from clause 8(a) of Form 3CA, the intention and act of the assessee was very clear to opt new tax regime as per section 115BAA. The assessee relied the following decisions:
(i) Aprameya Engineering Ltd. vs. Income tax Officer ITA No 456/Ahd/ 2024 A.Y.2022-23 order dated 11-06-2024
4
(ii) Bansal Corelam Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO , ITA No. 1856/Del/2023
order dated 26-11-2024
(iii) KN Support Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT , ITA No.
5774/Del/2024 order dated 29-08-2025
5. On the other hand ld. Sr. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities and submits the assessee has not fulfilled the condonations for availing the concessional tax rates. The assessee did not uploaded the Form 10-IC on the portal within time, therefore the assessee is not entitled for the benefits of the section 115BAA of the Act. The Ld. Sr. DR has relied the following decisions;
(i) CIT vs. Dilip Kumar & Company [2018]95 taxmann.com
327/69 GST
(ii) PCIT vs. Wipro ltd Civil appeal No. 1449 /2022 SC
6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In the return of income the assessee had opted to pay the tax under the new regime as provided in section 115BAA of the act by declaring total income of Rs. 6,85,34,000/-. The requirement to file Form No.10-IC along with return of income adhered by mentioning the wrong
5
acknowledgment number on the portal. The correct Form No 10-IC was admittedly filed by the assessee after the processed of the return of income by the CPC. The Ld. CPC while processing the return of income under section 143(1) of the Act denied the benefit of lower tax rate as provided under section 115BAA of the act to the assessee on the ground that valid Form 10-IC was not uploaded on the portal. In the present case the Form 10-IC was uploaded after the prescribed time. The intention of the assessee to disclose the income under the new regime under section 115BAA of the Act was disclosed in the tax audit report of the assessee. The coordinate bench in the various decision held that filing the Form 10-IC is directory in nature and granted the relief to the assessee. In the case of KN Support
Services Pvt.Ltd. the co-ordinate bench held as under:
“8. We have heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available and relevant facts of the case. The sole issue involved in the instant appeal is denial of benefit u/s 115BAA of concessional rate of tax on the ground that Form 10IC was not filed in the prescribed time i.e. before the due date u/s 139(1) for filing the return. It appears that assessee had acted in bonafide manner in claiming the option of concessional tax u/s 115BAA of the Act, in as much as while filing the return, it made clear that option to pay tax under Section 115BAA was exercised. Importantly, tax has also been paid at 22% in accordance with the provisions of Section 115BAA. It is undisputed fact that the assessee selected the option u/s 115BAA of the Act in return of income while calculating the tax as well as specified in clause 8(a) of Form 3CA which is clearly the beneficial one for the company. From tax calculated in the return and from clause 8(a) of Form 3CA, the intention and act of the assessee was very clear to opt new tax regime as per section 115BAA. There is no material objective to be achieved by the assessee in not e-filing papers before the due date
6
of return of the same, once the intent was very well declared in Form
3CA. It is also seen that substantial compliance was made to claim benefit of Section 115BAA of the Act which is evident from the fact that while filing the returns, assessee clearly stated that the option to discharge the tax was exercised u/s 115BAA of the Act and due tax was calculated and paid @ 22% without claiming deductions as contemplated u/s 115BAA of the Act. The reason given for the delay was bonafide where due to the search, the delay occurred in the preparation of the final accounts which lead to the delay in filing the Form 10IC as well as the return of income which was also field after the due date u/s 139(1) of the Act. This appears to be an exceptional circumstances and deserves to be considered.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Dilip Kumar (2018) 9 SCC 1 (FB, SC), while deciding the Doctrine of Substantial Compliance held as under:
"33. A fiscal statute generally seeks to preserve the need to comply strictly with regulatory requirements that are important, especially when a party seeks the benefits of an exemption clause that are important. Substantial compliance with an enactment is insisted, where mandatory and directory requirements are lumped together, for in such a case, if mandatory requirements are complied with, it will be proper to say that the enactment has been substantially complied with notwithstanding the non-compliance of directory requirements. In cases where substantial compliance has been found, there has been actual compliance with the statute, albeit procedurally faulty. The doctrine of substantial compliance seeks to preserve the need to comply strictly with the conditions or requirements that are important to invoke a tax or duty exemption and to forgive non-compliance for either unimportant and tangential requirements or requirements that are so confusingly or incorrectly written that an earnest effort at compliance should be accepted."
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Cell Com Teleservices (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India [2025] 176 taxmann.com 712 M (Allahabad) [17-07-2025) (refer Page No. 36 55 of Case Law Compilation (CLC)) wherein the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court held as under –
7
19. “The arbitrary rejection of the condonation of delay in filing
Form 10-IC are strongly supported by various judgments that widely interpret "genuine hardship" under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.M. Malani (supra) emphasized that "genuine hardship" signifies "genuine difficulty"
and requires a purposeful interpretation of the provision, mandating a judicious exercise of discretion by statutory authorities. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Gujarat Electric
Co. Ltd. (supra) held that "genuine hardship" must be construed liberally. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in K.S. Bilawala Ors.
(supra) and Sitaldas K Motwani (supra) further consolidated this liberal interpretation, asserting that the power to condone delay is for substantial justice and refusing it can defeat the interest of justice. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Deepak Pragjibhai
Gondaliya (supra), held that the filing of forms for claiming benefits is procedural and no assessee benefits from late filing.
The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Pankaj Kailash Agarwal
(supra) recited by the Madras High Court in MRF Ltd. (supra), firmly stated that the "an assessee feels that he would be paying more tax if he does not get the advantage of deduction will certainly constitute genuine hardship."
The judgments discussed hereinabove collectively stress that when substantial justice and technical considerations are aligned against each other, the preference should be given to the cause of substantial justice and the authorities' approach should be justice-oriented on merits. The clear and repeated position of law is that even if a procedural delay occurs due to "gemuine hardship", it should not prevent an assessee from receiving a rightful tax benefit. Therefore, in light of the aforesaid judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Courts, we are of the view that filing of Form 10-1C prior to filing of return is not mandatory and if "genuine hardship" is shown then delay may be condoned and in this respect the provision of law shall be taken as a beneficial piece of legislation.
After perusing the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, records and case laws cited, in the opinion of the Court, the genuine hardship shall be seen by the concerned respondent authority as the petitioner is not getting benefit of concessional
8
rate of tax under the Act, in respect of delay, therefore, the impugned order dated 30.01.2024 passed by the Principal
Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad is quashed and the respondent authority is directed to condone the delay in filing
Form 10-IC and accept the said Form 10-IC. The respondent concerned is further directed to provide consequential relief to the petitioner by recomputing its tax liability on the submission of its ITR by taking into account Form 10-IC.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.”
The Co-ordinate Bench of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Bansal Corelam Pvt. Ltd v ITO, ITA No. 1856/Del/2023 dated 26 November 2024, Hon'ble ITAT Delhi (refer Page No. 1-6 of CLC) held as below:
“The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Id NFAC was justified in confirming the denial of claim made by the assessee to opt new tax regime under section 115BAA of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee is a private limited company and had filed its return of income for assessment year 2021-22 belatedly on 30-3-2022. The extended due date under section 139(1) of the Act for the year under consideration was 15-3-2022. The assessee in the return of income had opted to pay the tax under the new tax regime as provided in section 115BAA of the Act by declaring total income of Rs 1,11,94,760/-. The requirement to file Form No. 10 IC along with the return of income was indeed not adhered to by the assessee in the instant case. Form 10 IC was admittedly filed by the assessee on 17-3- 2022 which was beyond the extended due date under section 139(1) of the Act. But the return of income was filed belatedly on 30-3-2022 The Learned CPC while processing the return under section 143(1) of the Act on 13-11-2022 denied the benefit of lower tax rate as provided under section 115BAA of the Act to the assessee on the ground that Form 10-IC was not filed on or before the due date of filing the return of income under section 9 139(1) of the Act and computed the income of the assessee under normal provisions of the Act. In the instant case, Form 10 (Ahdbd Trib) wherein it was held as under:-
3 After considering the submissions, the judicial precedents cited and the specific facts of the case, we are of the opinion the delay in filing Form 10-IC, though a procedural requirement, should not invalidate the assessee's substantive right to the benefit of section 115BAA of the Act.
4 The CBDT's Circulars extending the due dates for filing such forms in earlier years indicate a recognition of such procedural difficulties. These Circulars indicate a degree of administrative flexibility and a recognition that procedural lapses should not necessarily lead to the denial of substantive benefits. Moreover, denving the benefit based solely on this lapse would be against the principles of equity and justice, especially when there is no dispute regarding the assessee's eligibility for the lower tax rate."
Respectfully following the same, we direct the learned AO to recompute the income under the new tax regime in terms of section 115BAA of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.”
The Co-ordinate Bench of Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Aprameya Engineering Ltd. vs. ITO [TS-411-ITAT- 2024(Ahd)) (refer Page No. 7-17 of CLC) wherein it was held that considering the principle of beneficial interpretation, the 10 procedural requirements should not override substantive benefits. Hence, delay in filing of Form 10-IC, being a procedural requirement, should not invalidate the assessee's right to claim the benefit of Section 115BAA of the Act. It was further held that CBDT circulars extending due dates for filing of such forms in the earlier years indicate a degree of administrative flexibility and recognition that procedural lapses should not lead to denial of substantive benefits. The relevant extract of the judgement is reproduced as under:
1... “In the instant case, the Ld.A.O. as well as the Ld.CIT(A) has denied benefit of concessional tax rate u/s 115BAA of the Act on account of an inadvertent error on the part of the assessee in not e-filing Form 10 IC before due date prescribed. We are, therefore, of the view that there is sufficient compliance if the Form 10 IC has been filed during the course of assessment proceeding, since there is no material objective to be achieved by the assessee in not e- filing the same, once the intent was very well declared in Form 3CD.
2. Considering the principle of beneficial interpretation, the procedural requirements should not override substantive benefits. The Courts have taken a lenient view on procedural lapses when substantive benefits are involved. SC ruling in the case of CIT v. G.M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd. reported in (2015) 376 ITR 456 emphasized that the making of a claim of deduction is mandatory, but timing is directory. Even if the claim is made during the assessment proceedings, such a claim is to be allowed.
3. After considering the submissions, the judicial precedents cited and specific facts of the case, we are of the opinion the delay in filing Form 10-IC, though a procedural requirement, should not invalidate the assessee's substantive right to the benefit of section 115BAA of the Act.
4. The CBDT's Circulars extending the due dates for filing such forms in earlier years indicate a recognition of 11 such procedural difficulties. These Circulars indicate a degree of administrative flexibility and a recognition that procedural lapses should not necessarily lead to the denial of substantive benefits. Moreover, denying the benefit based solely on this lapse would be against the principles of equity and justice, especially when there is no dispute regarding the assessee's eligibility for the lower tax rate.
5. In light of the above, the Ground Number is allowed. Ground Number 2 is an alternative ground and, therefore, not adjudicated. Ground Numbers 3 and 4 are general in nature, which are also not adjudicated.”
The Co-ordinate Bench of Pune Tribunal in the case of Akshay (Akshay Devendra Biruri vs. DCIT, CPC [TS- 402-ITAT 2024(PUN)] (refer Page No. 18-21 of CLC) wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal held that in order to claim the benefit of the new tax regime, filing of Form 101E under Rule 21AG of the Rules, is not a mandatory requirement but it is rather directory in nature. The Hon'ble Tribunal directed the Revenue to allow the benefit of the new tax regime by taking into consideration the Form 101E as the same was available with the Revenue at the time of processing the return of income. The relevant paragraph of the said ruling is reproduced herewith for your Honour's ready reference:
“We heard the Id. Sr. DR and perused the relevant material on record. The solitary issue that arises for our consideration in the present appeal is whether the CPC was justified in denying the benefit of New Tax Regime. Admittedly, the appellant had failed to submit the prescribed Form No.101E in order to claim the benefit of New Tax Regime before the due date for filing the return of income. However, the appellant had filed the said form on 10.01.2024 on which date the CPC had processed the return of income u/s, 143(1)(a) denying the benefit of New Tax Regime. In any event, it is not a mandatory requirement for filing of Form No.101E but directory in nature. The Form No.101E was very much available with the CPC and the CPC ought to have considered the same
12
allowing the benefit of New Tax Regime. Therefore, we direct the CPC to amend the intimation by taking into consideration the Form No.101E, as the same was available with the CPC at the time of processing the return of income. We order accordingly.”
The Co-ordinate Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Krishna Gopal Diwvedi HUF [TS-140-ITAT-2025(Mum)] wherein the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal held as under 7.9. “Coming to the instant case, we observe that till the date of processing the return filed by the Assessee for the A.Y. 2022 23, Form No. 101E for exercising the option for availing the benefits of new tax regime filed on 10-01-2022 for the AY 2021-22 was neither withdrawn nor rejected or made invalid but the same was still available or effective before the AO during the assessment proceedings or passing the Assessment order and therefore in our considered view, the return filed by the Assessee should have been considered, under the new tax regime provisions. Thus, the Assessee is entitled for the benefit of new tax regime and consequently the addition is deleted. Resultantly, the appeal i.e. ITA no. 3482/M/2024 filed by the Assessee is allowed,"
In previous years, the CBDT extended the due dates for filing such forms indicate a recognition of such procedural difficulties. These Circulars indicate a degree of administrative flexibility and a recognition that procedural lapses should not necessarily lead to the denial of substantive benefits. Moreover, denying the benefit based solely on this lapse would be against the principles of equity and justice, especially when there is no dispute regarding the assessee's eligibility for the lower tax rate. Considering the principle of beneficial interpretation, the procedural requirements should not override substantive benefits. The Courts have taken a lenient view on procedural lapses when substantive benefits are involved. Supreme Court rulings always emphasized that the making of a claim of deduction is mandatory, but timing/format is directory.
13
16. In view of the above facts and by respectfully following judicial pronouncements cited above, in our considered opinion assessee should not be deprived from the concessional rate of tax available in the statute merely for the procedural lapse. Accordingly, we direct the AO to compute the tax at the concessional rate as per Section 115BAA of the Act. The ground of appeal Nos. 1 to 4 taken by assessee are allowed.”
Respectfully following the judicial pronouncements cited above we allowed the appeal of the assesse and direct the AO to compute the tax at the concessional rate as per section 115BAA of the Act. Accordingly, the grounds 1-3 are allowed. 8. Ground no 4 of the appeal is consequential in nature. 9. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 11.03.2026. (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (JUDICIAL MEMBER)
SR Bhatngar
Date: 11.03.2026