Vaaman Fab Private Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur)
A Typo Cannot Tax a Company Before It Was Born—Corrected Form 10-ID Relates Back & 15% Tax Rate u/s 115BAB Cannot Be Denied
The Jaipur Bench of the ITAT has held that where a company filed Form 10-ID within the prescribed time but inadvertently mentioned a financial year during which the company was not even in existence, the mistake was an obvious clerical error capable of rectification. The corrected Form 10-ID filed pursuant to the advice of the Department’s grievance cell could not be treated as a fresh and belated exercise of option. The assessee was consequently entitled to the concessional tax rate of 15% u/s 115BAB.
Vaaman Fab Private Limited had opted for the concessional taxation regime applicable to eligible new domestic manufacturing companies. To exercise this option, the assessee filed Form 10-ID on 01.04.2021. The form, however, incorrectly stated that the option was being exercised for FY 2019-20 and subsequent years.
The mistake was apparent from the contents of the form itself. The company had been incorporated only on 24.07.2020. Therefore, it could not possibly have exercised an option for a financial year during which it had no legal existence.
While processing the return for AY 2021-22 through an intimation u/s 143(1) dated 24.08.2022, the CPC denied the benefit of the concessional rate. The denial was based on the mismatch in Form 10-ID, which mentioned AY 2020-21/FY 2019-20 instead of the relevant year.
After becoming aware of the problem, the assessee raised a grievance on the e-filing portal. The Department’s grievance cell advised it to submit another Form 10-ID containing the correct assessment year. Acting upon that advice, the assessee filed a corrected form on 15.09.2022.
The CIT(A) treated the corrected form as an independent Form 10-ID. Since it had been filed approximately six months after the statutory deadline, the CIT(A) regarded it as belated and upheld the CPC’s refusal to grant the benefit u/s 115BAB.
There was also a delay of 98 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT. The assessee explained that after receipt of the appellate order, its erstwhile Chartered Accountant had been entrusted with filing the appeal but failed to do so. The Managing Director discovered the omission only while consulting another professional and thereafter filed the appeal.
Following the liberal principles governing condonation explained by the Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji, the Tribunal held that the failure of the earlier consultant constituted sufficient cause. There was no suggestion that the delay was deliberate or mala fide. The delay of 98 days was accordingly condoned.
On the substantive issue, the assessee argued that the original Form 10-ID had been filed in time and expressly stated that the option would apply to the specified year “and subsequent years.” The reference to FY 2019-20 was plainly inadvertent because the same form disclosed the company’s date of incorporation as 24.07.2020.
The assessee further contended that the form filed on 15.09.2022 was merely a correction of the original form, made on the advice of the Department itself. It could not be isolated from the original filing and characterised as a fresh, delayed exercise of option.
The ITAT accepted this reasoning. It observed that the original Form 10-ID contained a blatant and self-evident mistake. A company incorporated in July 2020 could not have exercised an option for FY 2019-20. There was, therefore, no genuine ambiguity regarding the year for which the assessee intended to avail itself of the concessional regime.
The Tribunal held that when an apparent mistake in a statutory form is subsequently rectified, the correction relates back to the date of the original form. The corrected form should not be considered on a standalone basis for determining limitation. Accordingly, Form 10-ID filed on 15.09.2022 was not a belated option but a rectification of the option already exercised through the timely original form.
The Tribunal also emphasised the beneficial object of s.115BAB. The provision was introduced to simplify taxation by allowing eligible companies to pay tax at a concessional rate without claiming specified deductions and exemptions. Form 10-ID is the prescribed mechanism through which the option is communicated. The Department should facilitate the operation of this simplified regime and should avoid a pedantic approach that creates unnecessary procedural hurdles.
Since the assessee’s intention was clear, the original form had been filed in time and the incorrect year was an obvious clerical mistake subsequently corrected, the ITAT held that the benefit of s.115BAB could not be denied. The CPC/AO was directed to allow the assessee taxation at the concessional rate, and the appeal was allowed.
Author’s Comments
The ruling draws an important distinction between a belated exercise of an option and a belated correction of an option already exercised in time. In the former situation, failure to comply with the statutory deadline may be fatal. In the latter, where the original form unequivocally demonstrates the assessee’s intention and the mistake is apparent from the document itself, treating the correction as a fresh filing elevates form over substance.
The strongest fact in the assessee’s favour was its date of incorporation. The form simultaneously stated that the company was incorporated on 24.07.2020 and that it was exercising the option for FY 2019-20. The contradiction proved the clerical nature of the error without requiring any elaborate investigation.
The fact that the corrected form was filed pursuant to the advice of the Department’s own grievance cell also materially strengthened the assessee’s case. Having advised correction through a fresh form, the Department could not fairly use the date of that corrective filing to defeat the original, timely option.
The ruling should, however, not be understood as dispensing with the statutory time limit for Form 10-ID in every case. It applies where a timely original form exists, the intention to opt for s.115BAB is clear, and the later filing merely repairs an obvious mistake. Where no form was originally filed, or the assessee’s intention remained uncertain until after the deadline, a different conclusion may follow.
The practical lesson is compelling: a correction repairs an existing choice; it does not necessarily create a new one. When the form says the company opted before it was born, the law should correct the typo—not deny the tax regime.
Cases Discussed
- Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ITAT JAIPUR
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal Addl/JCIT (A) 10, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 16.10.2025 under Section 250of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).
2. The appeal is noted to be delayed for filing by 98 days. An application by the assessee seeking condonation of the delay has been filed before me, the contents of which are reproduced hereunder:-
1. I am Managing Director of Vaaman Fab Private Limited.
2. The CPC issued intimation under section 143(1) of the Act on 24 August 2022 without granting the benefit of lower rate of tax as provided in section 115BAB of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Against this intimation, an appeal was filed before Ld. CIT(A) on 21 September 2022.
3. Ld. ADDL/JCIT (A)-10, Delhi passed the appellate order on 16 October 2025. Post receipt of the order, the erstwhile Chartered Accountant of the Company Mr Abhishek Khandelwal (M No 441811) who was dealing with the matter was entrusted with the work of filing the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. However, he did not file the appeal.
4. That when I approached CA Yogesh Parwal, Partner of Kalani & Co LLP, Jaipur on some legal advice, then in course of discussion, it came to my knowledge that no appeal has been filed as no appeal was appearing in the name of the Company on the ITAT website https://itat.gov.in/judicial/casestatus. On verification with the erstwhile Chartered Accountant, it came to my knowledge that appeal has not been filed so far and there is a delay in filing of the appeal. Thus, as advised, I am now filing the appeal before Hon’ble ITAT through CA Yogesh Parwal along with the request to condone the delay in filing the appeal.
Thus, the delay in filing the is due to a reasonable cause and therefore, the same be condoned and appeal be admitted for hearing for imparting substantial justice.
3. Ld. DR, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the condonation of delay contending that the reason brought out by the assessee reflected laxity on his part in pursuing the remedy of filing appeal and therefore the delay ought not to be condoned.
4. I have heard both the parties.
5. The law governing condonation of delay is now well settled. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag &Anr. v. Mst. Katiji&Ors.(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) laid down that the expression “sufficient cause” occurring in the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. The Court held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. The Court further observed that there is no presumption that delay is deliberate or occasioned on account of culpable negligence or mala fides and that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal belatedly.
6. Considering the averments made by the assessee before me, I am of the view that the assessee has adduced sufficient cause for the delay of 98 days in the filing of the present appeal before me. The delay it appears is attributable to the fact that the consultant of the assessee did not act in time for filing appeal which fact the assessee became aware of only when he consulted another professional. I accordingly condone the delay of 98 days in the filing of the present appeal before me. Order was pronounced in the Open Court
7. The grounds raised read as under:-
1. Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that there is a delay in filing of Form 10-ID which was re-filed on 15 September 2022 applicable for previous year 2020-21 and subsequent years without appreciating that earlier Form 10-ID filed on 1 April 2021 was applicable for previous year 2019-20 and subsequent years as well and therefore the benefit of section 115BAB of the Act should be granted to the Appellant for AY 2021-22 (previous year 2020-21) as the earlier Form 10-ID was filed within the due date of filing the return of income for AY 2021-22.
2. The appellant craves to alter, amend and modify any ground of appeal.
8. The solitary issue in the present appeal is the denial of benefit of the concessional rate of tax at the rate of 15% claimed by the assessee in terms of provisions of Section 115BAB of the Act, denied for the reason that Form 10ID, which was required to be filed along with the return of income for claiming benefit of concessional rate of tax, mentioned the wrong assessment year i.e AY 2020-21 instead of AY 2021-22 ,the impugned assessment year. Therefore, on account of mentioning of incorrect assessment year in Form 10ID the claim of benefit of concessional rate of tax u/s 115BAB of the Act was denied to the assessee in the intimation made u/s 143(1) of the Act.
9. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) reveals that the assessee filed a grievance with the e-filing portal and in the resolution of the grievance, the assessee was advised to file a new Form 10ID with the correct assessment year, which the assessee did by filing a fresh Form 10ID on 15.09.2022. Noting that this form was filed on 15.09.2022 with a delay of six months after the lapse of the statutory deadline, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the adjustment made by the CPC.
10. Before me, Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the mentioning of assessment year AY 2020-21 in Form 10ID was a clear mistake since the Form 10ID mentioned the date of incorporation of the assessee itself as 24.07.2020 pertaining to assessment year AY 2021-22. He pointed out that the CPC picked up the applicability of Form 10ID for AY 2020-21 on the basis of the assessee mentioning in Form 10ID that it is exercising the option referred to in sub-Section (7) of Section 115BAB of the Act for the previous year AY 2019-20. He contended that the fact of the assessee not being in existence in AY 2019-20 itself revealed that the mentioning of previous year 2019-20 was an inadvertent clerical mistake. He further pointed out that the assessee had also mentioned the exercise of option of Section 115BAB of the Act for previous year 2019-20 and subsequent years. He drew my attention to the relevant Form 10ID placed before me at paper book page No.9 pointing out the aforestated facts. He stated therefore that clearly this Form had been filed for the subsequent years also which included the impugned year before me.
11. He further contended that on becoming aware of the mistake, the assessee had filed a complaint to the grievance cell who had advised the assessee to file a fresh Form. Therefore, the rectification of the mistake in a Form and the rectified Form so filed could not be treated as a delayed filing of Form 10ID. That the rectified Form filed by the assessee needed to be considered as relating to the date in which the original Form was filed.
12. Ld. DR however, relied on the order of the Authorities below pointing out that the original form was incorrect and the rectified Form had been admittedly filed delayed by the assessee.
13. Having heard the contentions of both the parties. I find merit in the plea of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the Form 10ID considered by the Revenue as delayed was in principle not delayed Form 10ID. Admittedly, there was a blatant mistake in the original Form 10ID filed by the assessee wherein the assessee had incorrectly mentioned the assessee exercising its option of paying taxes as per the concessional rate prescribed u/s 115BAB of the Act for FY 2019-20 ,when clearly as per the contents of the Form itself it was not in existence in the said year . It was an apparent and clear mistake in the Form 10ID, which on the advice of the grievance cell of the Department itself, the assessee had subsequently rectified. An apparent mistake rectified relates back to the original Form filed by the assessee and the rectified Form filed by the assessee is not to be considered, therefore on a standalone basis, as having been filed belatedly.
14. In the light of the same, I do not agree with the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee had filed a belated Form 10ID so as to disentitle itself to claim the benefit of concessional rate of tax u/s 115BAB of the Act.
15. Even otherwise, it is a beneficial provision introduced in the Act so as to simplify the system of taxation by providing assessees’ to opt for paying taxes at a concessional rate of tax without claiming any exemptions and deductions. The whole purpose being to reduce litigation in the process and to simplify the computation of income and payment of taxes thereon. Form 10ID is merely Form submitted for exercising this option. The effort of the Revenue Department should be to ensure the success of this attempt made by the Legislature to simplify the system of taxation and not to create unnecessary hurdles in the execution of the same. A pedantic approach in interpreting this provision is to be avoided by the Department.
16. In the facts of the present case, when clearly the original Form 10ID filed by the assessee showed a mistake occurring which was subsequently rectified by the assessee, there was no reason at all for the Department to deny the assessee the benefit of paying taxes at concessional rate treating the rectified return so filed by the assessee to have been filed beyond the due date prescribed as per law.
17. In the light of the above, the CPC/AO is directed to allow the assessee the benefit of the concessional rate of tax.
18. In effect, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 10.09.2026
