SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(ITAT) 5046

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (PUNE BENCH)
SRSANVED AADIMAYA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED SANGLI – Appellant
Versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER SANGLI – Respondent
ITA 2347/PUN/2025[2020-21]



##PAGE1##

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT

ITA No.2347/PUN/2025

Assessment year : 2020-21

Srisanved Aadimaya Industries Pvt. Ltd. ITO, Sangli

Block J 41, MIDC-Kupwad, Kupwad

Vs.

MIDC Area S.O.,

Sangli – 416436

PAN: ABBCS4977K

(Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri Pramod S Shingte

Department by : Shri Arvind Renge, Addl. CIT (virtual)

Date of hearing : 04-03-2026

Date of pronouncement : 05-03-2026

O R D E R

PER R.K. PANDA, VP:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated

09.09.2025 of the Ld. Addl / JCIT(A), Bhubaneswar relating to assessment year

2020-21.

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company and filed its

return of income on 13.02.2021 opting the provisions of section 115BAA of the

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). However, the assessee

did not file Form No.10-IC for which the CPC while processing the return of

income u/s 143(1) of the Act computed the tax liability @ 30% instead of 22%.

##PAGE2##

2

ITA No.2347/PUN/2025

3. Before the Ld. Addl. / JCIT(A) it was submitted that filing of Form 10-IC is

a procedural requirement which need not be considered to be fatal to the claim of

concessional rate of tax u/s 115BAA of the Act particularly when the assessee

company has chosen the said tax regime in the income tax return itself. It was

submitted that opting of section 115BAA(5) in row in ITR-6 by the company is a

complete expression of interest by the company that it is opting to pay tax under

the simplified tax regime. It was further submitted that it was an era of Covid

pandemic due to which there was communication gaps among the team members.

It was submitted that in ITR-6 there was no column asking the date of submission

of Form No.10-IC which could reduce the possibility of such mistakes. It was

submitted that in case of individuals / HUFs opting for new taxation scheme u/s

115BAC, the portal asks for acknowledgement number of 10-IE while filing the

ITR being a mandatory column and the assessee cannot continue the process of

filing of ITR without filing the same. Even if there would be non-compliance in

filing of Form No.10-IE, the assessee would become aware of such requirement

and will submit the same. However, in case of filing of Form No.10-IC there is no

such column for which it caused trouble. Relying on various decisions it was

reiterated that non-submission of Form No.10-IC is a procedural mistake on part of

the assessee without any loss to the Revenue. Alternatively and without prejudice

to the above it was argued that since the turnover of the company is less than

Rs.400 crores, therefore, the applicable rate of tax is 25% excluding the education

cess as per the Finance Act.

##PAGE3##

3

ITA No.2347/PUN/2025

4. However, the Ld. Addl. / JCIT(A) was not satisfied with the arguments

advanced by the assessee and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by

observing as under:

5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. Addl. / JCIT(A), the assessee is in

appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A), NFAC

erred confirming the action of the Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

(hereinafter referred to as the ADIT) of determining tax liability at the rate

of 30% as against the claim of the appellant that it be taxed either:

a. As per the tax regime u/s 115BAA as per the return filed by it

OR

b. As per the Tax Regime as per the Finance Act, 2022 applicable to

companies having turnover for AY 2020-21 below Rs.400 crores i.e.

@25% Excluding SC and Cess).

The appellant prays that the ADIT be directed to determine the tax liability

applying the correct tax rate.

The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, modify, delete or add a

new ground of appeal before or at the time of hearing.

6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the same arguments as made

before the Ld. Addl. / JCIT(A) and submitted that when the assessee filed its return

##PAGE4##

4

ITA No

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top