M.B.D PRINTOGRAPHICS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 16(1), DELHI, DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal considered the assessee's submissions and the pending application for condonation of delay. Relying on a Gujarat High Court judgment, the Tribunal directed the PCIT to condone the delay in filing Form 10IC and allow the assessee to avail the benefit of the new tax regime.
What were the facts?
The assessee was denied the benefit of a new tax regime under Section 115BAA due to the non-filing of Form 10IC. The assessee contended that this was a procedural mistake by their counsel and that they should not suffer for it. An application for condonation of delay was filed with the PCIT, which was pending.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee could be denied the benefit of a new tax regime due to a procedural error in filing a form, and if the delay in filing could be condoned.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 115BAA,Section 115BBA,Section 250,Section 143(1),Section 119-2B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(5)Show listHide 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.
- Manoj Ahuja (Minor) & ANR. v. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner17 citing150 ITR 696 · 1984 · HC
- Sudershan Auto and General Finance v. CIT10 citing60 ITD 177 · ITAT
- 225 (Gujarat) v. M Procon Pvt. Ltd., v. Assistant Director of Income-tax7 citing168 Taxmann.com 517 · 2024 · HC
- Income Tax Officer v. Meghalaya Bonded Warehouse, ITAT Gauhati Bench7 citing60 ITD 219 · 1997 · ITAT
- CG Paul & Co. v. Income Tax Officer, ITAT Cochin Bench6 citing52 ITD 276 · 1994 · ITAT
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES : G : NEW DELHI
Before: MS MADHUMITA ROY & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA
Assessment Year : 2023-24 MBD Printographics Private Ltd., Vs. DCIT, MBD House, Circle-16(1), Gulab Bhavan, Delhi. 6, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi. PAN: AAACM9208R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Kushal Chopra, CA Revenue by : Shri Muneesh Rajani, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 22.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 13.02.2026 ORDER PER MADHUMITA ROY, JM:
The instant appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order dated 22.01.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) arising out of the assessment order dated 03.05.2024 passed by the AO, CPC (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Ld. AO’) u/s 143(1) of the Act for Assessment Year 2023-24.
The assessee has been denied granting the benefit of new tax regime opted u/s 115BAA of the Act only on the ground of non-filing of Form 10IC u/s 115BBA according to which concessional rate of tax is to be charged. It is the case of the assessee that detailed submissions in this respect were duly made before the Ld.CIT(A) with supporting case laws contending that it is only the procedural mistake on the part of the Ld. Counsel in not submitting the prescribed Form No.10IC before the AO and, for that, it was prayed that the litigant could not suffer on account of the inadvertent mistake by the counsel as it is the settled principle of law that the assessee could not suffer on account of the mistake of the counsel. The assessee, before the first appellate authority, relied upon certain case laws as follows:-
(i) Manoj Ahuja & Anr. Vs. Inspecting Asstt. Commissioner, 150 ITR 696 (P&H); (ii) CG Paul & Co. vs. Income Tax Officer (1994) 49 TTJ (Coch) 692: 52 ITD 276; (iii) Income Tax Officer vs. Meghalaya Bonded Warehouse (1997) 57 TTJ (Gau) 440: 60 ITD 219; (iv) Sudershan Auto & General Finance vs. CIT (1998) 60 TTJ (Del) 567: 60 ITD 177; (v) (A) Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. Supreme Court of India, S167 ITR 471 (SC); and (vi) Judgement of ITAT, Chandigarh Bench in HP Cricket Association, & 111/Chd/2004, order dated 08.09.2004.
Further, at the time of hearing, the ld. counsel appearing for the assessee drawn our attention to one Board Circular being No.17 of 2024 dated 18.11.2024 for AY 2023-24 wherein it has been brought to our notice that the assessee can apply before the PCIT for condonation of the delay pursuant thereto the assessee duly applied to the PCIT, Delhi-4 on 27.12.2024, a copy whereof has duly been furnished before the Bench at the time of hearing. Under these facts and circumstances of the matter, he further submitted that the said application dated 27.12.2024 is still pending before the Ld.PCIT and having regard to this particular aspect of the matter, the non-fling of Form 10IC, which was the sole reason for non-granting of the prayer of the by the Ld. CIT(A) should be considered afresh. In this regard, he has further relied on the judgement of the Gujarat High Court in the case of V.M. Procon Pvt. Ltd. vs. ADIT (2024) 168 taxmann.com 517 (Guj) whereby and whereunder the Hon’ble court was pleased to quash the order u/s 119-2B rejecting the condonation of delay and directed the department to accept Form No.10IC by the Petitioner. The Ld. AR, thus, prays for the same relief before us. Such prayer made by the Ld. AR has not been objected to by the Ld. DR with all his fairness.
Considering the entire aspect of the matter, we, therefore, dispose of this appeal by directing the Ld. PCIT in the instant case to condone the delay in the light of the order passed by the Gujarat High Court as aforesaid and allow the assessee’s delay in filing Form 10IC to get the relief as claimed for.
More judgments on Section 115BAA
- Doms Industries Ltd, Valsad vs PCIT, ValsadITA 595/SRT/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ceat Limited, Mumbai vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income-Tax…ITA 8146/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
- Triveni Interchem Private Limited, Vapi vs DCIT, Valsad Circle, ValsadITA 1199/SRT/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
- Tirthnkar Financial Services Private… vs ITO Ward 4(3)(1), MumbaiITA 2982/MUM/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2026AY 2021-22
- Falcon Bus Lines Private Limited, Mumbai vs DCIT 5(1)(1), MumbaiITA 7271/MUM/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2026AY 2024-25
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Its Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026