Surendra Himmatlal Shah Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
The appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai Bench, concerned an order dated 16 October 2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Faridabad, which had dismissed the assessee’s appeal against an intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2024–25.
The assessee, an individual aged about 91 years, had developed a patent in India titled “Frost Free Sub Zero Air Conditioner,” registered on 15 December 2008. For the relevant assessment year, the assessee filed a return of income on 18 July 2024 declaring total income of ₹35,63,940. The return included royalty income of ₹19,03,766 derived from the patented invention. The assessee offered this royalty income to tax at the concessional rate of 10 percent under Section 115BBF of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The return was processed by the Centralised Processing Centre (CPC), Bengaluru. Through an intimation order dated 17 January 2025, the CPC taxed the royalty income at the slab rate of 30 percent instead of the claimed concessional rate of 10 percent. The CPC also did not grant credit for tax deducted at source amounting to ₹72,000.
Subsequently, on 15 February 2025, the assessee filed Form 3CFA for the relevant assessment year as required for claiming the concessional tax rate under Section 115BBF. On 26 April 2025, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) along with an application seeking condonation of a 69-day delay in filing the appeal. The appellate authority condoned the delay but rejected the claim for the concessional tax rate on the ground that Form 3CFA had not been filed on or before the due date for filing the return of income.
