Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Jai Barbareek Dev Snacks Private Limited, claimed a concessional tax rate of 15% under Section 115BAB of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Years 2023-24 and 2024-25. This claim was disallowed by the CPC/AO and subsequently upheld by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, on the grounds that the assessee had not correctly opted for the benefit in the Income Tax Return (ITR) form, having selected "none of above" in one column.
Held
The Tribunal noted a discrepancy in the ITR, where one column indicated "none of above" for opting into Section 115BA/115BAA/115BAB, while a subsequent column indicated "Yes" for choosing this option for the current year. The Tribunal held that the First Appellate Authority failed to correctly interpret the ITR and verify the factual position. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for de novo adjudication to ascertain the applicability of the concessional tax rate after proper verification.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee correctly opted for the concessional tax rate under Section 115BAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and if the revenue authorities correctly interpreted the Income Tax Return filing despite contradictory entries in the option selection fields.
Sections Cited
115BAB, 139(1), 115BA, 115BAA
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR
Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY
आदेश / ORDER
PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM
The captioned appeals preferred by the assessee emanates from the respective orders of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, dated 18.03.2025 and 21.03.2025 for the assessment years 2023-24 & 2024-25 as per the grounds of appeal on record.
Both the parties herein conceded that since the facts and issues involved in both these appeals are absolutely similar and identical, therefore, the cases may be taken up together and dispose of vide this consolidated order.
In these appeals the limited point for adjudication is whether CPC/A.O was correct in making disallowance of concessional tax rate @15% u/s. 115BAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) which was upheld by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. In this regard, the findings of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC are extracted as follows: “5.4 I have carefully considered the appellant’s submission. Here it is pertinent to mention that to claim the benefit of concessional tax rate @15% as per provisions of Section 115BAB of the I.T.Act; Form No.10ID have to file on or before the due date specified under sub-section (1) of Section 139 for furnishing the returns of income for the first assessment year commencing on or after 1st day of April, 2020 to avail the benefit. Such option once exercised shall apply to subsequent assessment years and cannot be withdrawn.
3 Jai Barbareek Dev Snacks Private Limited Vs. ITO-1(1), Bhilai & 381/RPR/2025
On perusal of income tax return filed by the appellant electronically for A.Y.2023-24 on 31/10/2023, it is seen that the appellant has filed in “Column No. (e) under filing status of ITR as under:
4 Jai Barbareek Dev Snacks Private Limited Vs. ITO-1(1), Bhilai & 381/RPR/2025
5 Jai Barbareek Dev Snacks Private Limited Vs. ITO-1(1), Bhilai & 381/RPR/2025
Thus, the appellant has not opted for taxation under section 115BAB of the I.T. Act (applicable on Domestic Company) and not reported in the column "(e) under filing status" instead the appellant has opted for "none of the above" in the first ITR filed for A.Y. 2023-24. Therefore, the claim of the appellant is not allowable. Keeping in view of the above, I am of the opinion that the CPC (AO) has rightly made disallowance of concessional lower tax rate @ 15% u/s 115BAB of the I.T. Act, 1961. Therefore, these grounds of appeal are dismissed.
6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.”
4. Since in the first year i.e. A.Y.2023-24, the benefit of Section 115BAB of the Act denied to the assessee following the “4th proviso” to Section 115BAB of the Act. The department had also denied the same for A.Y.2024-25. The same is only referred to and not being extracted for the sake of brevity.
At the time of hearing referring to the finding part of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) for A.Y.2023-24, the Ld. Counsel pointed out that in the income tax return, they had mentioned in the Column “ Have you opted for taxation under section 115BA/115BAA/115BAB (applicable on Domestic company) and therein the assessee had mentioned “none of the above” mentioning that for the earlier year, they had not made such option. However, in the “column” appearing thereafter, it is written “whether you are choosing to opt for taxation under section 115BA /115BAA/115BAB in this year?” and for that, the assessee had given
6 Jai Barbareek Dev Snacks Private Limited Vs. ITO-1(1), Bhilai & 381/RPR/2025 option as “Yes”, therefore, there has been wrong interpretation of the income tax return by the revenue authorities.
I have carefully considered the facts on record and the income tax returns as emanating from the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and therein the contention raised by the Ld. Counsel requires through verification of facts and correct interpretation by the first appellate authority. If it is found that the contention of the Ld. Counsel is correct and indeed they have opted for taxation u/s. 115BAB of the Act for the relevant assessment year, in such case, the revenue needs to determine on facts regarding applicability of concessional taxation rate regarding the assessee.
Be that as it may, it is the onus on the part of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC to interpret correctly the return of income and since the department is having adequate machinery, it has to be carefully done so that rights of the bonafide assessee should not be hampered. In view thereof, I set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and remand the matter back to its file for denovo adjudication as per law specifically responding to the aforesaid direction.
As per the above terms grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
7 Jai Barbareek Dev Snacks Private Limited Vs. ITO-1(1), Bhilai & 381/RPR/2025
ITA No.381/RPR/2025 A.Y.2024-25
As the facts and issues involved in the captioned appeal remains the same as were there before me in A.Y.2023-24, therefore, the decision rendered in for A.Y.2023-24 shall mutatis-mutandis apply for for A.Y.2024-25.
In the result, appeal of the assessee in for A.Y.2024-25 is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the combined result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in open court on 23rd day of July, 2025.