IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA No. 1665/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2023-24)

(Assessment Year: 2023-24)

(Assessment Year: 2023-24)

(Assessment Year: 2023-24)

(Assessment Year: 2023-24)

(Assessment Year: 2023-24)

(Assessment Year: 2023-24)

Assessee by : Shri Manish Agarwal(virtually appeared)

Respondent by : Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 17.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 12.01.2026 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M:

This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ADDL/JCIT (A)-2 Chandigarh (‘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) 2023-24.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant and thereby upholding the levy of tax and surcharge at 25% and 12%, respectively, instead of 22% and 10%, respectively, as prescribed under Section 115BAA of the Act.

1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Appellant had fulfilled all requisite conditions under the law for AY 2023-24 and, therefore, ought to have been granted the option under Section

115BAA of the Act.

1.2 Whether opportunity of heard was given by CIT(A)?

1.3 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by holding that Form 10-IC was filed beyond the prescribed due date for AY 2023-24, despite the fact that it was filed on 31 October 2023, well within the prescribed due date of 31 October 2023.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred by relying on a circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes ("CBDT") under Section 119(2)(b) regarding the condonation of delay in filing Form 10-IC (F. No.

173/32/2022-ITA-I) dated 18 November 2024, in the present case.

2.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the aforesaid circular applies only to cases involving a delay in filing Form 10-IC.

22 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that a circular issued by the CBDT cannot supersede legislative provisions by imposing additional conditions on assessees who have already fulfilled the requirements specified under the Act.

3 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Centralized Processing Centre did not issue the mandatory statutory notice under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act before processing the return of income with a higher tax and surcharge rate.

The Appellant craves leave to add, to amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.

The Appellant prays that appropriate relief be granted based on the said grounds of appeal and the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a limited company engaged in the business of designing and manufacturing distinctive collection of hand embroidered apparels and had filed its return of income for the year under consideration dated 02.11.2023, declaring total income at Rs. 1,27,35,880/- and had opted to be taxed u/s. 115BAA of the Act which provides for reduced rate of tax applicable to companies that opt for this regime. The assessee’s return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act, where the CPC had computed the assessee’s tax liability under the normal provisions, thereby raising demand of Rs. 12,03,610/- without considering the assessee’s option to be taxed u/s.

115BAA of the Act, vide intimation order dated 22.12.2023 u/s. 143(1) of the Act.

4. Aggrieved the assessee was in appeal before the first appel