IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JM AND SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.5255/MUM/2024 (िनधा(cid:5)रण वष(cid:5) / Assessment Year :2022-23)

DCIT 2, 3, 1 Vs. Oceanic Trade Minerals Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Pvt. Ltd.

Churchgate, Mumbai, 1207, Remi Comercio, Off Maharashtra-400020 Veer Desai Road, Shah Industrial Estate, Andheri Railway Station S.O, Maharashtra-400058 (cid:11)थायी लेखा सं./PAN No. : AACCO9091J (अपीलाथ(cid:16) /Appellant) .. ((cid:17)(cid:18)थ(cid:16) / Respondent)

िनधा(cid:22)(cid:23)रती की ओर से /Assessee by : Ms. Neha Paranjpe (Proxy Counsel)

राज(cid:26) की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Mahesh Pamnani (Sr. DR)

सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 10/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 28/02/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY:

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 30.07.2024, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2022-2023.

2. At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 9 days in filing the instant appeal, on which the Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) has filed an application for condonation of delay, wherein it has been mentioned that the delay has been occurred due to delay in administrative exigencies and unavailability of crucial documents necessary for preparation of the appeal under consideration. Considering the reason for the delay in filing the appeal as genuine and bonafide, the delay is condoned.

3. Coming to the merits of the case, it appears from the orders passed by the authorities below that the Assessee for the A.Y. 2021- 22 by filing form no.10IC on dated 19.07.2022 had opted for taxability of its income u/s 115BAA of the Act. However, the benefit of the scheme was not provided to the Assessee mainly on the reasons that form no.101C has been filed beyond the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act. The Assessee, subsequently by filing its return of income, has opted for option 'E' and has claimed to have filed form no.10IC for the A.Y. 2021-22 on 19.07.2022 and therefore claimed the benefit of provisions of section 115BAA of the Act for the A.Y. 2021-22 as well. However, the CPC vide intimation/order dated 28.07.2023 u/s 143(1) of the Act, also denied such benefit claimed by the Assessee by considering the fact that the benefit of the new tax regime as claimed in the A.Y. 2021-22 by filing form no.10IC belatedly on 19.07.2022 has been disallowed. The AO consequently vide intimation/order dated 28-07-2023 u/s 143 (1) of the Act, raised the demand of Rs. 1,02,20,780/-.

4. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the decision of the CPC for not allowing the benefit of new tax regime, who vide impugned order allowed the appeal of the Assessee and accordingly directed the AO to allow the benefit of the provisions of section 115BAA of the Act, to the Assessee and recompute the tax liability accordingly. For brevity and ready reference, the conclusion drawn by the Ld. Commissioner is as under:

“4.2.3 A perusal of the documents available on record reveals that the appellant is claiming that it had filed form 10-IC well before the due date as far as assessment year 2022-23 is concerned. However, it is pertinent to mention here that though the appellant had claimed benefit of the provisions of section 115BAA for A.Y. 2021-22 also but as Form 10-IC was filed on 19.07.2022. Primarily for this reason, it was denied the benefit of the provisions of section

115BAA for 2021-22.

4.2.4 It is also seen from the ITR filed for assessment year 2022-23 that in the portion containing details of filing status the appellant has opted for option 'e' and has claimed that it has filed the form 10-IC for assessment year 2021-22 on 19.07.2022, and accordingly it is claiming benefit of provisions of Section 11