##PAGE1##

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

SURAT BENCH, SURAT

(HYBRID HEARING)

Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member And

Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Accountant Member

ITA No: 197/SRT/2026

Assessment Year: 2020-21

Dealhop (P.) Ltd. Income Tax Officer

110, Shree Kuberji Park-2, Ward-1(1)(1),

Belgium Square Meghani Vs Surat

Tower, Tilak Masidan

Station Road, Surat

Gujarat-395003

PAN: AAFCD8391K (Respondent)

(Appellant)

Assessee Represented: Shri Kiran K. Shah, CA

Revenue Represented: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. D.R.

Date of hearing : 20-04-2026

Date of pronouncement : 23-04-2026

आदेश/ORDER

PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against the appellate

order dated 19.11.2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner of

Income Tax/JCIT (Appeals)-4 Delhi arising out of the rectification

order passed u/s. 154 of the Income Tax Income Tax Act, 1961

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year

2020-21.

I.T.A No. 197//SRT/2026 A.Y. 2020-21 Page No 2

Dealhop (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO

2. The registry has noted that there is delay of 19 days in filing the

above appeal. The assessee by way of Notarized Affidavit stated that

the Accountant who was handling the matter resigned his job,

thereby the delay in filing the above appeal. Considering the

reasons cited by the assessee, the delay of 19 days in filing the

appeal is hereby condoned.

3. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a company filed its

Return of Income for the Asst. Year 2020-21 on 21-12-2020

declaring taxable income of Rs.41,79,450/- and has opted to tax

u/s. 115BAA in ITR-6, however the assessee has not filed relevant

Form No. 10-IC alongwith the Return of Income. The CPC

processed the return u/s. 143(1) of the Act vide intimation dated

18-12-2021 and worked out the tax under normal rate at 30%

instead of 22% as opted by the assessee u/s. 115BAA of the Act.

4. Aggrieved against the intimation, the assessee filed a rectification

petition u/s. 154 of the Act as follows:

“Reference Year: Deal Hop (P) Ltd.

Year: Α. Υ. 2020-21

Subject: Rectification u/s. 154 of the Act.

DIN: CPC/2021/A6/183994787 on 18/12/2021

With reference to the above, I beg to state as under.

An intimation u/s. 143 (1) was passed on 18.12.2021. The CPC had levied

tax at the rate of 30% on returned income of Rs.41,79,450/- as the

prescribed form 10-IC was not filed. It is submitted that there was mistake

on the part of staff of my AR. I am filing herewith form 10-IC and the same

may be now considered and rectify the order. This being mistake apparent

on record, the same may be rectified and oblige. Copy of form 10-IC are

filed.”

I.T.A No. 197//SRT/2026 A.Y. 2020-21 Page No 3

Dealhop (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO

5. This rectification application was rejected by the assessing officer

on the ground that there is no mistake apparent on record in the

intimation passed u/s. 143(1) of the Act, since the assessee failed

to file Form 10-IC before the due date of filing the ITR.

6. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee filed appeal before

Addl./JCIT-4 Delhi, who has also dismissed the appeal that there

is no apparent mistake available on record.

7. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee is in appeal before us

raising the following Grounds of Appeal:

1) The learned CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the appeal against order

of rejecting rectification application filed u/s. 154 of the Act on account of

provision of 115BAA of the Act merely because the same was not filed as

per the provisions of section 139 (1) of the Act.

2) The learned CIT(A) ought to have considered form 10IC filed alangwith

rectification u/s. 154 of the Act and ought to have allowed the claim of rate

of income fax to be charged at 22%.

3) The appellant reserves right to add, alter and withdraw any grounds of

appeal.

8. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials

available on record. It is undisputed fact that the assessee has not

filed Form 10-IC alongwith the Return of Income, thereby CPC

assessed the income at normal tax rates at 3