Aprameya Engineering Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Ahmedabad delivered a ruling in the case of Aprameya Engineering Limited vs. Income Tax Officer, addressing the rejection of a lower tax rate under Section 115BAA due to the delayed filing of Form 10-IC. The dispute arose when the Central Processing Centre (CPC) processed the company’s return for Assessment Year 2022-23 and charged tax at the normal rate of 30% instead of the concessional 22%, citing late submission of Form 10-IC. The assessee appealed, arguing that the form’s filing was procedural rather than substantive and that the delay should be condoned.
The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, ruling that compliance with Section 115BAA(5) is mandatory and that the first appellate authority lacks jurisdiction to condone such delays under Section 119(2)(b). The CIT(A) relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Principal CIT vs. Wipro Ltd. (2022), which upheld a strict interpretation of procedural requirements in tax law. However, the assessee contended that the Wipro case was distinguishable as it dealt with Section 10B, an exemption provision, whereas Section 115BAA is a concessional tax regime.
The ITAT examined judicial precedents, including Anjana Foundation (2024), Brinda Rama Krishna (2021), and Niteshkumar Shah (2023), which allowed tax benefits despite procedural lapses. The tribunal also referred to G.M. Knitting Industries (2015), where the Supreme Court held that while filing the required form is mandatory, the timing is directory. The Gujarat High Court ruling in Zenith Processing Mills further reinforced this stance by stating that procedural non-compliance should not lead to the denial of substantive tax benefits.
Considering these precedents and the CBDT’s past extensions for filing such forms, the ITAT ruled that the delay in filing Form 10-IC should not negate the assessee’s right to the lower tax rate under Section 115BAA. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)’s order, directing the revenue authorities to allow the concessional tax rate, emphasizing that procedural compliance should not override substantive tax benefits.
