MARELLI (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,GURUGRAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONAR OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 16(1), NEW DELHI

Date of hearing: 27/10/2025 Date of Pronouncement: 19/11/2025 ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JM:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal Addl. /JCIT(A)-5 Chennai [hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”], vide order dated 23.12.2024 pertaining to A.Y. 2020-21 and arises out of the intimation order dated 20-06-2024 passed by the CPC Bengaluru under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’]. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the order dated 23-12-2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax( Appeals) [“CIT(A)”] under section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961(“the Act”) in the case of the Appellant for assessment year 2020-21 is patently erroneous, unsustainable and bad in law.

2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not allowing benefit of concessional tax rate under section 115BAA of the Act to the appellant, on ground that the Appellant had not established whether Form No. 10IC was filed within the extended due date prescribed by the CBDT vide Circular No. 6/2022 dated17-03-2022. 3 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in summarily rejecting the claim of the Appellant , without considering the documents on record and without affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellant.

4. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the levy of interest under section 234B,234C and 234D of the Act.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is accompany engaged in the business of providing services such as development, testing, technical support, other business support services and trading in automobile parts. The assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2020-21 on 12-01-2021 declaring total income of Rs.26,70,57,030/-. The assessee deposed the advance tax of Rs. 4,85,00,000/- and deducted the tax at sources of Rs. 2,25,41,556/-. The assessee claimed the refund of Rs.38,28,640/-. The return of income processed u/s 143(1) of the Act by The CPC and raised the demand of Rs. 2,95,42,770/-. Being aggrieved the order of the intimation, the assessee filed the appeal before the National faceless Appeal Centre. The appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed by the NFAC, on 01-02-2024. Subsequently in the compliance of the appellate order the assessment order was passed raising the demand of Rs.3,76,67,179/-. Aggrieved the order from the Assessing Officer the assessee company filed the appeal before the Ld CIT(A), who vide his order dated 23-12-2024 partly allowed the appeal. Ld. CIT(A) has observed in his order as under: Ground relating to Failure to consider option opted under 115BAA: 4.5 In the return of income filed by the appellant for AY 2020- 21, the appellant had exercised the option for being taxed at a rate of 22% (plus applicable surcharge and education cess) under section 115BAA of the Act. 4.6 The appellant had submitted that the appellant inadvertently did not file Form 10-IC on the e-filling portal within the prescribed time limit i.e. until the due date for filing return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. 4.7 In order to the avail the benefit of concessional rate of tax u/s.115BAA, a domestic company has to file form 10IC before the due date u/s.139(1). However, the CBDT, New Delhi considering the fact that such omissions are probable in the first year of its implementation and appreciating the plight of assessees of similar grievances, had by Circular No.6/2022 dated 17/03/2022 in F.No.173/32/2022-ITA-1, condoned the delay and extended the due date for filing or filing form no.10IC for AY 2020-21 to 30/06/2022. 4.8 As at present, the appellant has not established that the Form 10IC has been filed within the extended due date, the corresponding ground of appeal is therefore dismissed. Ground relating to levy of interest under section 234B, 234C and 234D: 4.9 The levy of interest u/s.234B, 234C and 234D are consequential in nature and will get adjusted when the other ground of appeal is addressed and therefore not adjudicated separately.