KWORKS TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GURGAON

“On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the intimation passed under section 143(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act.) dated 26 June 2023 in erroneous and bad in law.

We have heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available and relevant facts of the case. The sole issue involved in the instant appeal is denial of benefit u/s 115BAA of concessional rate of tax on the ground that Form 10IC was not filed in the prescribed time i.e. before the due date u/s 139(1) for filing the return. It appears that assessee had acted in bonafide manner in claiming the option of concessional tax u/s 115BAA of the Act, in as much as while filing the return, it made clear that option to pay tax under Section 115BAA was exercised. Importantly, tax has also been paid at 22% in accordance with the provisions of Section 115BAA. It is undisputed fact that the assessee selected the option u/s 115BAA of the Act in return of income while calculating the tax as well as specified in clause 8(a) of Form 3CA which is clearly the beneficial one for the company. From tax calculated in the return Kworks Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and from clause 8(a) of Form 3CA, the intention and act of the assessee was very clear to opt new tax regime as per section 115BAA. There is no material objective to be achieved by the assessee in not e-filing papers before the due date of return of the same, once the intent was very well declared in Form 3CA. It is also seen that substantial compliance was made to claim benefit of Section 115BAA of the Act which is evident from the fact that while filing the returns, assessee clearly stated that the option to discharge the tax was exercised u/s 115BAA of the Act and due tax was calculated and paid @ 22% without claiming deductions as contemplated u/s 115BAA of the Act. The reason given for the delay was bonafide where due to the search, the delay occurred in the preparation of the final accounts which lead to the delay in filing the Form 10IC as well as the return of income which was also field after the due date u/s 139(1) of the Act. This appears to be exceptional circumstances and deserves to be considered.

The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Cell Com Teleservices (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India [2025] 176 taxmann.com 712 M (Allahabad) [17-07-2025) (refer Page No. 36- 55 of Case Law Compilation (CLC)) wherein the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court held as under -

“The arbitrary rejection of the condonation of delay in filing Form 10-IC are strongly supported by various judgments that widely interpret "genuine hardship" under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.M. Malani (supra) emphasized that "genuine hardship" signifies "genuine difficulty" and requires a purposeful interpretation of the provision, mandating a judicious exercise of discretion by statutory authorities. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Gujarat Electric Co. Ltd. (supra) held that "genuine hardship" must be construed liberally. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in K.S. Bilawala Ors. (supra) and Sitaldas K Motwani (supra) further consolidated this liberal interpretation, asserting that the power to condone delay is for substantial justice and refusing it can defeat the interest of justice. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Deepak Pragjibhai Gondaliya (supra), held that the filing of forms for claiming benefits is procedural and no assessee benefits from late filing. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Pankaj Kailash Agarwal (supra) recited by the Madras High Court in MRF Ltd. (supra), firmly stated that the "an assessee feels that he would be paying more tax if he does not get the advantage of deduction will certainly constitute genuine hardship."

The judgments discussed hereinabove collectively stress that when substantial justice and technical considerations are Kworks Technologies Pvt. Ltd. aligned against each other, the preference should be given to the cause of substantial justice and the authorities' approach should be justice-oriented on merits. The clear and repeated position of law is that even if a procedural delay occurs due to "gemuine hardship", it should not prevent an assessee from receiving a rightful tax benefit. Therefore, in light of the aforesaid judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Courts, we are of the view that filing of Form 10-1C prior to filing of return is not mandatory and if "genuine hardship" is shown then delay may be condoned and in this respect the provision of law shall be taken as a beneficial piece of legislation.

After perusing the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, records and case laws cited, in the opinion of the Court, the genuine hardship shall be seen by the concerned respondent authority as the petitioner is not getting benefit of concessional rate of tax under the Act, in respect of delay, therefore, the impugned order dated 30.01.2024 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad is quashed and the respondent authority is directed to condone the delay in filing Form 10-IC and accept the said Form 10-IC. The respondent concerned is further directed to provide consequential relief to the petitioner by recomputing its tax liability on the submission of its ITR by taking into account Form 10-IC.

The Co-ordinate Bench of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Bansal Corelam Pvt. Ltd v ITO, dated 26 November 2024, Hon'ble ITAT Delhi (refer Page No. 1-6 of CLC) held as below:

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee is a private limited company and had filed its return of income for assessment year 2021-22 belatedly on 30-3-2022. The extended due date under section 139(1) of the Act for the year under consideration was 15-3-2022. The assessee in the return of income had opted to pay the tax under the new tax regime as provided in section 115BAA of the Act by declaring total income of Rs 1,11,94,760/-. The requirement to file Form No. 10 IC along with the return of income was indeed not adhered to by the assessee in the instant case. Form 10 IC was admittedly filed by the assessee on 17-3-2022 which was beyond the extended due date under section 139(1) of the Act. But the return of income was filed belatedly on 30-3-2022 The Learned CPC while processing the return under section 143(1) of the Act on 13-11-2022 denied the benefit of lower tax rate as provided under section 115BAA of the Act to the assessee on the ground that Form 10-IC was not filed on or before the due date of filing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act and computed the income of the assessee under normal provisions of the Act. In the instant case, Form 10 IC was filed by the assessee beyond the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act, but was filed before the date of filing the return under section 139(4) of the Act. The intention of the assessee to disclose the income under the new tax regime under section 115BAA of the Act was disclosed in the tax audit report of the assessee. In our considered opinion, the filing of Form 10 IC though mandated in the Act need to be construed as directory in nature. This view of ours is further fortified by the decision of Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Aprameya Engineering Ltd vs ITO reported in 164 taxmann.com 740 (Ahdbd Trib) wherein it was held as under:- 8.3 After considering the submissions, the judicial precedents cited and the specific facts of the case, we are of the opinion the delay in filing Form 10-IC, though a procedural requirement, should not invalidate the assessee's substantive right to the benefit of section 115BAA of the Act.

Respectfully following the same, we direct the learned AO to recompute the income under the new tax regime in terms of section 115BAA of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.”

The Co-ordinate Bench of Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Aprameya Engineering Ltd. vs. ITO [TS-411-ITAT-2024(Ahd)) (refer Page No. 7-17 of CLC) wherein it was held that considering the principle of beneficial interpretation, the procedural requirements should not override substantive benefits. Hence, delay in filing of Form 10-IC, being a procedural requirement, should not invalidate the assessee's right to claim the benefit of Section 115BAA of the Act. It was further held that CBDT circulars extending due dates for filing of such forms in the earlier years indicate a degree of administrative flexibility and recognition that procedural lapses should not lead to denial of substantive benefits. The relevant extract of the judgement is reproduced as under:

The Co-ordinate Bench of Pune Tribunal in the case of Akshay (Akshay Devendra Biruri vs. DCIT, CPC [TS-402-ITAT- 2024(PUN)] (refer Page No. 18-21 of CLC) wherein the Hon'ble Kworks Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Tribunal held that in order to claim the benefit of the new tax regime, filing of Form 101E under Rule 21AG of the Rules, is not a mandatory requirement but it is rather directory in nature. The Hon'ble Tribunal directed the Revenue to allow the benefit of the new tax regime by taking into consideration the Form 101E as the same was available with the Revenue at the time of processing the return of income. The relevant paragraph of the said ruling is reproduced herewith for your Honour's ready reference:

The Co-ordinate Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Krishna Gopal Diwvedi HUF [TS-140-ITAT-2025(Mum)] wherein the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal held as under 7.9. “Coming to the instant case, we observe that till the date of processing the return filed by the Assessee for the A.Y. 2022- Kworks Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 23, Form No. 101E for exercising the option for availing the benefits of new tax regime filed on 10-01-2022 for the AY 2021- 22 was neither withdrawn nor rejected or made invalid but the same was still available or effective before the AO during the assessment proceedings or passing the Assessment order and therefore in our considered view, the return filed by the Assessee should have been considered, under the new tax regime provisions. Thus, the Assessee is entitled for the benefit of new tax regime and consequently the addition is deleted. Resultantly, the appeal 1.e. filed by the Assessee is allowed,"

In previous years, the CBDT extended the due dates for filing such forms indicates a recognition of such procedural difficulties. These Circulars indicate a degree of administrative flexibility and a recognition that procedural lapses should not necessarily lead to the denial of substantive benefits. Moreover, denying the benefit based solely on this lapse would be against the principles of equity and justice, especially when there is no dispute regarding the assessee's eligibility for the lower tax rate. Considering the principle of beneficial interpretation, the procedural requirements should not override substantive benefits. The Courts have taken a lenient view on procedural lapses when substantive benefits are involved. Supreme Court rulings always emphasized that the making of a claim of deduction is mandatory, but timing/format is directory.

In view of the above facts and by respectfully following judicial pronouncements cited above), in our considered opinion assessee should not be deprived from the concessional rate of tax available in the statute merely for the procedural lapse. Accordingly, we direct the AO to compute the tax at the concessional rate as per Section

Ground of appeal No. 5 is consequential in nature.

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed.