BADA SAAB PROPERTIES PVT LTD,MUMBAI V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4449/MUM/2025

AI Insights

M/s. Badasaab Properties Pvt. Ltd. appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which upheld the Assessing Officer's decision denying the concessional tax rate under section 115BAA due to the late filing of Form 10-IC. The Tribunal examined whether the delay in filing the form could be condoned and whether the assessee's inadvertent error in uploading Form 10-IB instead of Form 10-IC should affect their eligibility for the concessional tax rate. The Tribunal referenced several precedents and a CBDT circular, concluding that the delay should be condoned to prevent hardship to the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 841835 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2024-2025
• Appeal Filed On: 10-07-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Madison Communications (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT, A. C. Surgipharma (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. KGY Glass Industries (P.) Ltd., Surat Smart City Development Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Sonakshi Sinha vs CIT(Appeals)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEYAQAT ALI AAFAQUI
• Assessee Lawyers: A. N. SHAH
• Keywords: Rectification of order
• Section: 154; 115JB; 119(2)(b)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA No.4449/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2024-25) M/s. Badasaab Properties Pvt. Ltd., 501 Krystal, 206 Waterfield Road, Bandra (West) Maharashtra – 400 050 Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 4(1)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai PAN: AAACB1642A (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri A.N. Shah, AR Respondent by : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. AR Date of Hearing : 24.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 23.02.2026 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, JM: This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short] passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2024-25. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee pertained to the issue that the CPC/Learned Assessing Officer (‘Ld. AO’ for short) had denied the assessee’s option for beneficial rate of tax u/s 115BAA of the Act on the ground that the assessee had filed form 10IC after the due date for filing of return, which was also upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) on the ground that the power to condone the delay in filing Form 10-IC is not vested with the Ld. CIT(A) as per section 119(2)(b) of the Act. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4449/Mum/2025 M/s. Badasaab Properties Pvt. Ltd. 2 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a domestic company and had filed its return of income for the year under consideration dated 30.10.2024 declaring total income at Rs.20,03,66,560/- and had claimed a refund of Rs.15,05,100/-. The assessee had opted for concessional rate of tax at 22% as per the provisions of section 115BAA of the Act in the return of income filed by the assessee. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act where the CPC/Ld. AO had raised a demand of Rs.13,58,520/- by computing the tax payable by the assessee as per section 115JB of the Act, for the reason that the assessee had filed Form 10-IC belatedly after the due date of filing of return of income. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority who vide order dated 30.05.2025 dismissed the appeal of the assessee stating that the first appellate authority does not have the power to condone the delay in filing Form 10-IC as per section 119(2)(b) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us challenging the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is observed that the assessee while filing its return of income had opted to be taxed as per the provisions of section 115BAA of the Act on concessional tax rate at 22% for the first time during the year under consideration. The assessee instead of uploading Form 10- IC had uploaded Form 10-IB inadvertently. The assessee received intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act and upon receipt of the same, the assessee is said to have uploaded Form 10-IC on 23.01.2025 and also filed a rectification application u/s 154 of the Act on the same day. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4449/Mum/2025 M/s. Badasaab Properties Pvt. Ltd. 3 The Ld. AO passed the rectification order u/s 154 of the Act dated 04.02.2025. In appeal filed before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee’s contention for belated filing of Form 10-IC was rejected stating that it was beyond the power of the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay in filing Form 10-IC. It is observed that as per the Taxation Law (Amendment Act, 2019) w.e.f. 01.04.2020 u/s 115BAA of the Act which was then inserted, the assessee being a domestic company for any previous year relevant to the assessment year beginning on or after 01.04.2020 shall, at the option of such person, be taxed @ 22% subject to satisfaction of the conditions contained in section 115BAA(2) of the Act, for which, the assessee company was required to submit Form 10-IC electronically on or before the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act and if such option is exercised the same shall apply to the subsequent assessment years. The assessee instead of Form 10-IC inadvertently uploaded Form 10-IB, which was then subsequently uploaded on 23.01.2025 vide acknowledgment No.836601200230125 on the ITBA portal for rectifying the inadvertent error. The assessee contends that it was merely a clerical error for which the assessee ought not to be denied the benefit of concessional tax rate u/s 115BAA of the Act when the assessee satisfies the conditions prescribed under sub section (2) of section 115BAA of the Act. The Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR” for short) for the assessee relied on a catena of decisions in support of the assessee’s contention along with the CBDT circular which are cited herein under for ease of reference: “1. CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2024 2. Madison Communications (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (162 Taxman 280-Mumbai Tribunal) 3. A. C. Surgipharma (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (157 Taxman 360 Delhi HC) Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4449/Mum/2025 M/s. Badasaab Properties Pvt. Ltd. 4 4. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. KGY Glass Industries (P.) Ltd. (156 taxman 18 Gujarat HC) 5. Surat Smart City Development Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (169 taxman 222 (Gujarat HC) 6. Sonakshi Sinha vs CIT(Appeals) [2022] [197 ITD 263] [Mumbai Tribunal]” 7. On perusal of the abovementioned decisions and the circular, it is observed that the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Surat Smart City Development Ltd. (supra) had distinguished the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Wipro Ltd. [2022] 140 taxmann.com 223 stating that it was a case where filing declaration u/s 10(B)(8) of the Act in accordance with the provision of section 10(B)(5) of the Act, which is to verify the correctness of the claim by the assessee at the time of filing of return for claiming exemption u/s 10(B) of the Act, in which not only the same is mandatory but also the time limit for filing the declaration was also held to be mandatory for granting relief to the assessee but here in the present case it was for availing benefit of concessional rate of tax @ 22% by filing Form 10-IC subject to satisfaction of the conditions prescribed in the provision. It was further held that the delay in filing the Form 10-IC ought to be condoned and that the provision of section 119(2)(b) of the Act are intended to solve the grievances and hardship caused to the assessee which in fact had relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of R. Seshammal v. ITO [1999] 237 ITR 185 (Madras) according to which the Board is vested with powers to render justice in circumstances of limitations, where the Board has arbitrarily rejected the assessee’s request for refund. This emphasizes that the Courts have taken a liberal view in condoning the delay in filing Form 10-IC by avoiding rejection of the claim on mere technicalities. We also draw support from the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of KGY Glass Industries Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4449/Mum/2025 M/s. Badasaab Properties Pvt. Ltd. 5 (P.) Ltd. (supra) where it had condoned the delay in uploading Form 10-IC on ITBA portal due to technical error with no fault of the assessee. Here in the present case there can be no denial that the assessee intended to comply with the conditions but had faulted by uploading Form 10-IB instead of Form 10-IC which are prone to happen and due to such technical error the assessee cannot be left remediless, rather allow the assessee to rectify the error when the assessee is entitled to claim concessional rate of tax as per section 115BAA of the Act, otherwise if it satisfies the other conditions stipulated by law. We, therefore, deem it fit to direct the Ld. AO to consider the Form 10-IC which was subsequently filed by the assessee by condoning the delay in uploading the said form and to allow the assessee’s claim of concessional tax rate if the assessee, otherwise satisfies the conditions enumerated as per the provisions of law. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 23.02.2026 Sd/- Sd/- (OM PRAKASH KANT) (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 23.02.2026 * Kishore, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT- concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard File BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "