Delay in e-filing Form 10-IC condoned by CBDT Circular 19/2023, allowing section 115BAA concessional tax regime benefit.

ORDER

PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[NFAC], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 14.03.2024 for Assessment Year 2021-22. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :

“1 The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming tax of appellant at Rs. 2,73,95,728/as against refund of Rs. 29,71,648/- merely due to delay in filing of form 10-IC on the ITBA portal. Learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that, delay in filing of form 10-IC is a mere procedural issue, and not any substantive issue to determine tax liability.

2. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by confirming the tax liability computed by CPC irrespective of the facts that, the appellant has opted for a new tax regime u/s 115BAA of ITA, 1961 in return of income filed u/s 139(1) on 12/03/2022 for AY 2021-22 moreover the fact that, the appellant's case of delay condonation with respect to form 10IC falls under the circular no 19/2023 issued by CBDT. Further, the learned NFAC CIT(A) also erred in asking the appellant to get the delay condoned from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax instead of relying on the above-mentioned circular.

3. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact by confirming the tax liability computed by the learned CPC Bangalore by not appreciating the fact that, the Form 10-IC was filed and available on record before the intimation order was passed u/s 143(1).

4. Appellant craves leave to add/alter/delete/modify, all/ any of the above grounds of appeal.”

Brief facts of the case :

2. The facts emanating from ld.CIT(A)’s order and submission are as under :

“The assessee Company engaged in the business of designing, developing, and manufacturing electronic control and timing devices that are used in the instrumentation and switchgear industry. It has filed its Return of Income (ROI) for the year under consideration on 12/03/2022 by declaring a total income of Rs.25,61,51,210/-. The return was processed by CPC Bangalore and proposed adjustment u/s 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was issued wherein the following additions were proposed to be made:

Variation et disalowance of expenditure of Rs. 6.71.649/ indicated in audit report but not taken into account in computing total income being employee's contribution to PF not paid before the due dates. In response to the said proposed adjustment w 143(1)(a), appellant duly submitted its response.

On submission of the response the return was processed and an intimation order uls 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was passed on 13/11/2022 and duly communicated to the assessee.

Following Variations were made in the intimation order u/s 143(1):

1. Disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) for late payment of employee contribution to PF Fund (ii) Variation of Computation of tax liability The assessee opted for new tax regime u/s115BAA of Income-tax Act, 1961 In the Clause 8(a) of Tax Audit Report it has been reported that the appellant opted for the new tax regime u/s 115BAA of Income- tax Act, 1961 The appellant inadvertently failed to file Form 10IC for opting for tax regime u/s 115BAA before furnishing a return of income. As such learned CPC processed the return of income and computed tax at normal rates of tax ie. 30% along with 12% surcharge and education cess, instead of computing tax at the rate of 22% along with 10% surcharge and education cess. Accordingly, CPC Bangalore passed order u/s 143(1) on 13/11/2022 by making addition of Rs.6,71,649/- (Rs.25,68,22,860 Rs. 25.61.51.210) thereby assessing total income at Rs.25.68,22.860/- and computed balance tax liab