2025 (7) TMI 515 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of claim of lower rate of tax u/s 115BAB - rejection of Form-10ID by the ld. CPC Bangalore - HELD THAT - In order to take benefit of the said provision the assessee needs to file Form 10ID on or before the due date specified as per sub section (1) of Section 139 of the Act for furnishing the return of income for the first assessment year commencing on or after 1st day of April 2020. That it has been brought on record that as per the ITBA portal the assessee filed first income tax return for A.Y.2021-22 on 24.02.2022 vide acknowledgement. However Form 10ID was only filed by the assessee on 21.09.2024 electronically which was after due date from the first return of income filed. Since the mandate of the provision is not complied with therefore the CPC/A.O had rightly denied the benefit of concessional tax rate to the assessee as per Section 115BAB of the Act. The quasi-judicial authority has to follow the mandate of the statute in its strictest form and provide always literal interpretation of the provision. The quasi-judicial authorities while interpreting fiscal statutes cannot interpret the provision in a way other than the way it is provided in the statute itself. Meaning thereby the intention of the legislature regarding the fiscal statute has to be applied in totality in black and white i.e. word to word as it is written and intended in the said statute. Accordingly we find no infirmity with the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC which is upheld.

Summary

The core legal questions considered in the appeal are:

1. Whether the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte without providing adequate opportunity and without observing principles of natural justice.

2. Whether the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was correct in confirming the disallowance of the claim for concessional tax rate under section 115BAB of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and upholding the rejection of Form 10ID by the CPC, Bangalore, despite the assessee's claim of compliance with conditions and timely exercise of option under sub-section (2) read with sub-section (7) of section 115BAB.

3. Whether the impugned order is legally and factually sustainable.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Alleged violation of principles of natural justice by deciding appeal ex-parte

The appellant contended that the CIT(Appeals) decided the appeal without providing adequate opportunity of hearing, thereby violating principles of natural justice. However, the Tribunal's order does not record any finding in favour of this contention. The appeal was dismissed on merits, indicating that the procedural aspect was either complied with or not found to be prejudicial to the appellant. No specific evidence or finding was discussed regarding denial of opportunity. Thus, this ground was not upheld.

Issue 2: Validity of disallowance of concessional tax rate claim under section 115BAB

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 115BAB of the Income-tax Act, 1961, provides for a concessional tax rate of 15% on total income of a domestic company subject to specified conditions. Crucially, sub-section (7) mandates that the option to avail this concessional rate must be exercised in the prescribed manner on or before the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139 for furnishing the first return of income for any previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing on or after 1st April 2020. The option, once exercised, applies to subsequent assessment years and cannot be withdrawn.

Other conditions under sub-section (2) include incorporation date, commencement of manufacturing or production, restrictions on use of previously used machinery or buildings, and the nature of business activities.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized the strict and literal interpretation of the statutory provision, particularly sub-section (7). It held that the filing of Form 10ID (the prescribed manner of exercising the option) must be done on or before the due date for filing the first return of income relevant to the assessment year commencing on or after 1 April 2020.

The assessee's first return for AY 2021-22 was filed on 24.02.2022, which was the relevant first return for the purposes of section 115BAB(7). However, Form 10ID was filed electronically only on 21.09.2024, which was well beyond the due date of the first return.

Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of timely filing of Form 10ID, rendering the option invalid as per the clear statutory mandate.

Key Evidence and Findings: The ITBA portal records confirmed the dates of filing of the first return and Form 10ID. The assessee's claim that the option was exercised in the year of commencement of manufacturing (2024) was not supported by the prescribed procedural compliance.

Application of Law to Facts: Since the option was not exercised within the statutory timeline, the concessional tax rate under section 115BAB could not be allowed. The CPC/AO's disallowance and CIT(Appeals)' confirmation were therefore upheld as per the statutory mandate.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee argued compliance with conditions and timely exercise of option in the year manufacturing commenced. The Tribunal rejected this on the ground that the statute explicitly requires the option to be exercised by the due date of the first return of income relevant to the assessment year commencing on or after 1 April 2020, irrespective of the year manufacturing commenced. The Tribunal underscored that fiscal statutes must be interpreted strictly and literally, leaving no room for deviation from the statutory language.

Issue 3: Overall legality and factual correctness of the impugned order

The Tribunal found no infirmity in the impugned order. The order was consistent with the statutory provisions and facts on record. The procedural and substantive aspects were found to be in accordance with law.

Significant Holdings:

"It is crystal clear that in order to take benefit of the said provision, the assessee needs to file Form 10ID on or before the due date specified as per sub section (1) of Section 139 of the Act for furnishing the return of income for the first assessment year commencing on or after 1st day of April, 2020."

"The quasi-judicial authority has to follow the mandate of the statute in its strictest form and provide always literal interpretation of the provision. The quasi-judicial authorities while interpreting fiscal statutes cannot interpret the provision in a way other than the way it is provided in the statute itself."

"Since the mandate of the provision is not complied with, therefore, the CPC/A.O had rightly denied the benefit of concessional tax rate to the assessee as per Section 115BAB of the Act."

Core Principles Established:

- The option to avail concessional tax rate under section 115BAB must be exercised strictly in accordance with the timeline prescribed under sub-section (7), i.e., on or before the due date of filing the first return of income relevant to the assessment year commencing on or after 1 April 2020.

- Failure to comply with this mandatory procedural requirement results in the option becoming invalid and denial of concessional tax benefits.

- Fiscal statutes are to be interpreted literally and strictly, with the intention of the legislature discerned from the plain language of the statute.

- Quasi-judicial authorities must adhere to the statutory mandate without extending or curtailing benefits beyond what is provided in the law.

Final Determinations:

1. The appeal on the ground of violation of natural justice was not upheld.

2. The claim for concessional tax rate under section 115BAB was correctly disallowed due to non-compliance with the mandatory condition of timely filing of Form 10ID.

3. The impugned order was legally and factually sustainable and was accordingly upheld.