PRAN PANDIA,COOCHBEHAR vs. I.T.O., WARD - 2(1), COOCHBEHAR, COOCHBEHAR

The captioned appeals filed by the Revenue, pertaining to assessment years 2021-22 are directed against the orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 22, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ld. CIT(A)’) even dated 17th May, 2024, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’).

Brief facts of the case are that in where assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2021-22 under the provisions of Section 139(1) of the Act, claiming benefit of concessional tax rate u/s 115BAC of the Act. The Central Processing Centre (CPC), Bangalore processed the return but denied the concessional tax rate benefit on the grounds that the assessee had failed to file form no.10IE electronically before the due date of filing of return of income. An intimation was issued u/s 143(1) of the Act on 22nd March, 2022 to the assessee denying such claim as made by the assessee.

Aggrieved by the intimation assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT (A) which is delayed by 709 days in filing the appeal. However, the ld. CIT (A) rejected the appeal on the grounds that the reasons for the delay were not sufficient. Thereby ld. CIT (A) confirming the CPC’s decision.

Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT (A), the assessee has now filed an appeal before this Tribunal raising multiple grounds, primarily contesting the rejection of the claim for concessional tax rate u/s 115BAC of the Act. At the time of hearing, no one present on behalf of the assessee. Although, consecutive notices were

On perusal of the material available on record, we find that the assessee’s main contention is that the failure to file form no.10IE, was mere inadvertent lapse and did not result any revenue loss. The assessee had complied with all other provisions of Section 115BAC of the Act and the failure to file the form should not result any denial of the concessional tax benefits. The contention of the assessee is that it is a procedural lapse and on this issue various judicial decisions has been passed by the various authorities, where it was held that procedural lapse were to be condonable if they did not result any substantial loss to the Revenue.

On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order of the ld. AO and the ld. CIT (A). The ld. DR argued that the provisions of the Act are clear and mandatory in nature and form no.10IE is required to be filed before the due date u/s 139(1) of the Act for availing concessional tax rate u/s 115BAC od the Act. The assessee’s failure to comply with this requirement disqualified him from availing the concessional tax benefit.

We have heard the submissions of the ld. DR and perused the materials available on record. After carefully considering the facts of the case, it is evident that assessee failed to file form no.10IE within the prescribed due date. However, it is also noted that the assessee has otherwise complied with other conditions u/s 115BAC o f the Act. We also noted that there has been no loss

In the light of the above discussion, we condone the delay in filing form no.10IE and direct the AO to grant the benefit of concessional tax rate u/s 115BAC of the Act, subject to verification of compliance with other conditions under the said section.

Since, we have allow the appeal in our decision in this appeal will equally apply to as both the appeals pertains to similar facts and issues. Accordingly, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.