JAI BARBAREEK DEV SNACKS PRIVATE LIMITED,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), BHILAI, BHILAI

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 Such option once exercised shall apply to subsequent assessment years and cannot be withdrawn.

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

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.

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No.380/RPR/2025 for A.Y.2023-24 is allowed for statistical purposes.

As the facts and issues involved in the captioned appeal remains the same as were there before me in ITA No.380/RPR/2025 for A.Y.2023-24, therefore, the decision rendered in ITA No.380/RPR/2025 for A.Y.2023-24 shall mutatis-mutandis apply for ITA No.381/RPR/2025 for A.Y.2024-25.

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No.381/RPR/2025 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.