IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BHARGAV D. KARIA, D.N. RAY, JJ.
M/s. Royal Led Equipments Pvt. Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad and Others - Respondents
Special Civil Application No. 14786 of 2024
Decided On : 11-03-2025
(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 115BAB, 119(2)(b), 139(1), 143(1) - Delay in filing Form 10-ID - Petitioner, a registered company, faced technical difficulties in filing Form 10-ID for Assessment Year 2021-22, leading to rejection of its application for condonation of delay - CBDT Circulars acknowledged widespread issues with the income tax portal, allowing for condonation of delays under certain conditions - Court emphasized that procedural inadequacies should not deny substantive benefits under the Act. (Paras 3.1, 3.4, 8.1, 9)
(B) Judicial Review - The court held that the rejection of the petitioner's application was arbitrary and directed the authorities to accept the Form 10-ID as valid, emphasizing the need for equitable treatment in tax matters. (Paras 8.1, 9)
Facts of the case:
The Petitioner filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2021-22 under Section 139(1) but could not submit Form 10-ID on time due to technical issues with the income tax portal. The CBDT later issued Circulars to condone such delays.
Findings of Court:
The court quashed the rejection of the petitioner's application for condonation of delay and directed the authorities to accept the Form 10-ID as valid.
Issues: The main issues were whether the delay in filing Form 10-ID could be condoned and if the rejection of the application was arbitrary.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that procedural delays should not prevent the grant of substantive benefits under the Act, especially when the authorities acknowledged the technical difficulties faced by taxpayers.
Result: Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
(D.N. RAY, J.)
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Darshan B. Gandhi for the Petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Rudram Trivedi appearing on behalf of learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Nikunt K. Raval for the Respondents.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Rudram Trivedi waives service of the notice of the rule on behalf of the Respondents. With the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for hearing, as the issue involved is very short.
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
3.1 The Petitioner is a registered company, inter alia, engaged in the business of manufacturing LED contour linear solutions and advanced technology. The Petitioner-Assessing Company filed its return of income on 28.10.2021, for the Assessment Year 2021-22, under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ( for short “the Act”).
3.2 The Petitioner availed the benefits of lower tax rate under Section 115BAB of the Act. The Petitioner made numerous attempts to fill Form 10-ID under Section 115BAB read with 23AF of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, however, it could not file its Form-10-ID within the prescribed time limit under Section 139(1) of the Act, on 07.11.2021.The Petitioner’s consultant made a tweet on Twitter.com and tweeted that the income tax portal was not working efficiently, and he was unable to file the Form 10-ID for the companies.
3.3 While processing the return of the Petitioner company, the Central Processing Centre (CPC) Authority admitted that the Petitioner had opted for the benefits of provisions of the Section 115BAB of the Act.
3.4 Meanwhile, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (‘CBDT’ noticed that, while claiming the benefits of lower tax rates for the Assessment Year 2021-22, the assessees were facing difficulties in filing such forms. Accordingly, the CBDT issued Circular No. 06 of 2022, dated 17.03.2022 providing a standing instruction to condone the delay that occurred to the assessee in filing of the Form 10-ID under the provisions of Section 115BAB of the Act.
3.5 Eventually, on 12.09.2022, the Petitioner-Company was able to file Form 10-ID on the online portal for the Assessment Year 2021-22. Thereafter, on 12.09.2022, the Petitioner-Company filed its returns of income for the Assessment Year 2022-23 and 2023-24 and claimed the benefits of the special tax rates of Section 115BAB of the Act. For Assessment Year 2022-23, as there was no income chargeable to tax, the Petitioner-Company was not impacted. However, for the return of income for the Assessment Year 2023-24, there was taxable income under Section 143(1) of the Act, the CPC- Authority did not grant the benefits of Section 115BAB of the Act.
3.6 On receipt of the intimation order under Section 143(1) of the Act on 22.12.2023, the Petitioner came to know that the benefits of provisions of Section 115BAB were not granted to the Petitioner-Company.
3.7. On 12.01.2024, the Petitioner-Company filed an application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act to condone the delay that occurred in filing Form 10-ID for the Assessment year 2021-22.
3.8. Upon filing of the aforesaid application by the Petitioner- Company, Respondent No. 1 called for the report and comments of the Jurisdiction Assessing Officer i.e., Respondent No. 3, as well as its Range Head.
3.9. Upon receiving the report/comments from the Assessing Officer and Range Head of the Petitioner-Company, Respondent No. 1 passed an order dated 26.06.2024 rejecting the application of the Petitioner-Company.
4. Aggrieved by the order of the Respondent No.1 dated 26.06.2024, present petition is filed with the following prayers:-
“A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Certiorarified Mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or directions (i) quashing and setting aside the impugned order passed by the respondent no.01 under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act on 26.06.2024 at Annexure - G and further, (ii) Directi
Procedural delays in tax filings should not deny substantive benefits, especially when technical difficulties are acknowledged by authorities.
The court ruled that genuine hardship under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act should be interpreted liberally, allowing the petitioner to file Form 10IC for AY 2021 despite prior technical issu....
The court ruled that genuine hardship in tax procedures should be prioritized over strict compliance with technical rules, allowing delayed filings under equitable considerations.
The court established that genuine hardship must be considered in applications for condonation of delay in filing tax-related documents, emphasizing the need for a compassionate approach by authoriti....
Delayed filing of Form 10-IC is directory and procedural; does not invalidate section 115BAA option exercised in return of income if conditions satisfied and no revenue prejudice.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that while the CBDT's circular authorized the Commissioner to admit belated applications for condonation of delay for up to 365 days, a special ord....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.