Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(ITAT) 10190

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (HYDERABAD BENCH)
Vijay Pal Rao, Vice President, Manjunatha G, Accountant Member
Wingtech Mobile Communication (India) Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax – Respondent
I.T.A. No. 2269/Hyd/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Ruchika Gupta, C.A.
For the Respondents: Ms. U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR

The option for the concessional tax regime under the new tax framework is a beneficial provision. An assessee who provides the mandatory declaration within the statutory due date applicable to their specific class cannot be denied the benefit due to procedural lapses or clerical errors in filing supplementary audit reports.

Headnote:(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 115BAA, 115JB, 139(1), 143(2) and 143(3) - Income Tax Rules, 1962 - Rule 21AE - New tax regime - Concessional tax rate - Delay in filing statutory forms - The option to pay tax at the concessional rate under Section 115BAA is a beneficial provision. The requirement to file the declaration in the prescribed form on or before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1) is the core condition for availing this benefit. The due date for filing the return of income is determined based on the class of the assessee and does not undergo modification merely because of the failure to file other statutory reports or clerical errors in the return regarding the applicability of audit reports. (Paras 13, 14, 15 and 16)

(B) Assessment and Procedure - Statutory deadlines - The determination of the due date for filing a tax return is grounded in the category of the assessee under the Act. Procedural lapses, such as the delayed filing of audit reports or inadvertent errors in selecting applicability checkboxes within the digital return form, do not permit the revenue authorities to retroactively alter the statutory due date. Once an assessee falls within a specific class, the prescribed due date remains constant. (Paras 15 and 17)

Facts of the case:
An appeal was filed against the rejection of the concessional tax regime. The taxpayer had declared a nil income and opted for the concessional tax rate, filing the required declaration form on the date corresponding to the extended deadline for its category of assessee. The authorities initially treated the tax return as belated, arguing that the taxpayer failed to file a transfer pricing audit report, thereby disentitling them to the extended deadline and the concessional tax regime, forcing an assessment under the minimum alternative tax provisions.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the classification of the taxpayer under the Act determines the due date for filing the return. The failure to file specific audit reports triggers separate penal consequences and does not empower authorities to redefine the due date. Since the taxpayer had filed the necessary declaration form within the statutory timeframe applicable to its class, the denial of the concessional tax regime was unjustified.

Issues: The central issues were: (1) whether the due date for filing the return of income was correctly applied, and (2) whether the failure to file mandatory audit reports or clerical errors in the return form permits the denial of the beneficial concessional tax regime.

Ratio Decidendi: The provision for a concessional tax regime is beneficial in nature and should be interpreted to effectuate its purpose rather than being restricted by technical procedural lapses that do not defeat the substantive compliance of exercising the option within the applicable statutory timeframe. Therefore, when the option is exercised within the relevant due date, the regime must be granted, and the minimum alternative tax is not applicable.

Result: Appeal allowed.

Table of Content
1. determining the correct statutory due date under section 139(1) for section 115baa eligibility. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
2. concessional tax regime prevails over mat once the option is validly exercised. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)

O R D E R

PER MANJUNATHA G., A.M :

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam – 3, dated 21.11.2025, pertaining to the assessment year 2022-23. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under :

1. That the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred on facts, in circumstances of the case and in law in upholding the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") with tax liability of Rs. 23,74,19,543, which is bad in law, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of law and settled legal position.

2. That the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred on facts, in circumstances of the case and in law by upholding computation as per old tax regime and computing tax liability under MAT, though MAT provisions are not applicable to companies which have opted for new tax regime u/s 115BAA of the Act, which is in teeth of the mandate of Article 265 of the Constitution of India.

3. That the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred on facts, in circumstances of the case and in law by ignoring that for AY 2022-23, the statutory due date for filing ITR was 30th November 2022, for all assesses on which Transfer Pricing provisions were applicable, which was independent of timing and manner of compliances undertaken by the Appellant.

4. That the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred on facts, in circumstances of the case and in law by considering that there was delay in filing Form 10-IC, without appreciating that the said form was duly filed within timelines, after satisfaction of conditions as prescribed in section 115BAA(5) r.ws. 139(1) and Income Tax Rule 21AE .

5. That the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred on facts, in circumstances of the case and in law in disregarding Appellant's right to be assessed u/s 115BAA of the Act, ignoring that the Appellant acted in a bonafide manner by completing all the applicable compliances, in accordance with the law in force.

6. That the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred on facts, in circumstances of the case and in law by disregarding settled judicial precedents that declaration of intention of the Assessee for availing new tax regime u/s 115BAA of the Act is relevant, irrespective of any procedural lapses.

7. That the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred on facts, in circumstances of the case and in law by passing a non-speaking order, without considering procedural lapses, without disposing-off applications/ objections raised by the Appellant and without providing opportunity of being, which is clearly in violation of the principles of natural justice.

8. That the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred on facts, in circumstances of the case and in law, in confirming the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271B of the Act.

9. That the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred on facts, in circumstances of the case and in law, in confirming the assessment order whereby interest was charged u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act.

10. That the assessment order in question is based on whims, surmises, conjectures and without any basis, accordingly, the same is not sustainable either on facts or in law.

11. That all the appeal grounds raised hereinabove are independent grounds and without prejudice to each other That the Appellant craves leave to add, alter and/or amend all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal.”

2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee company, M/s. Wingtech Mobile Communications (India) Private Limited, is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of mobile phones, mobile hotspot devices and other electronic components. The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2022-23 on 30.12.2022 declaring total income at Rs. NIL. During the course of assessment proceedings, the return of i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(ITAT) 10190

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (HYDERABAD BENCH)Vijay Pal Rao, Vice President, Manjunatha G, Accountant MemberWingtech Mobile Communication (India) Private Limited – AppellantVersusDeputy Commissioner of Income Tax – RespondentI.T.A. No. 2269/Hyd/2025

Cases Referred (1)

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (HYDERABAD BENCH)
Vijay Pal Rao, Vice President, Manjunatha G, Accountant Member
Wingtech Mobile Communication (India) Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax – Respondent
I.T.A. No. 2269/Hyd/2025