9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 698X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed after the due date of 15.03.2022 as per CBDT's circular No. 19/2022. Therefore, it cannot be considered valid for A.Y.2021- 22 or for A. Υ.2022-23. 2. The Ld.AddI/JCIT (Appeals)-5, Delhi erred in law and on facts by misinterpreting the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 10.01.2022 in MA No.21 of 2022. The Hon'ble Supreme Court's extension of due dates was for limitation purposes in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, not for the filing of returns u/s. 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, the due date for filing Form 10-IC was not extended to 30.05.2022, and the form filed on 29.03.2022 is invalid. 3. The Ld.AddI/JCIT(Appeals)-5, Delhi erred in law and on facts by failing to consider the conditions specified in CBDT's circular No. 19/2023. The circular provides condonation for filing Form-10IC only if the return of income was filed on or before the due date specified u/s. 139(1). Since the assessee's return was filed late, the Form-10IC is invalid, and the claim u/s. 115BAA may not have been accepted. 4. The Ld.Addl/JCIT (Appeals)-5, Delhi erred in law and on facts by not considering that the assessee filed Form No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed Form 10-IC on 29.03.2022 opting for provisions of section 115BAA of the Act for AY 2021-22 onwards. In other words, the assessee had filed Form 10-IC opting the new tax regime before the due date of filing of return of income for AY 2022-23. Hence, the assessee was eligible to claim the new tax benefit as per section 115BAA of the Act for AY 2022-23. However, the CPC (AO) has not given the benefit of 115BAA and calculated the tax as per normal provisions for AY 2022-23 while processing the return u/s 143(1) of the Act. As per the above provisions of section 115BAA of the Act, once the provision of section 115BAA are opted, the assessee cannot opt out of the said new tax regime u/s 115BAA of the Act subsequently and the tax on income of the assessee has to be calculated as per section 115BAA of the Act for AY 2022- 23 only. The below is the extract of the 2nd proviso to sub section 5 of section 115BAA which states as under: "Provided further that once the option has been exercised for any previous year, it cannot be subsequently withdrawn for the same or any other previous year." Further, the due date for filing return of income and Form 10-IC for AY 2021- 22 as per CBDT w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n extended for 90 days as per the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dt.10.01.2022 passed in Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022 in Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020 in reference to Cognizance for Extension of Limitation. The ld.AR has drawn our attention to para III at page 4 of the said order of Hon'ble Supreme Court, whereby the time limit had been extended. The same is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference : "III. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022. notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply." 8. Furthermore, it was submitted by the ld.AR that the assessment for the year under consideration is for A.Y. 2022-23 and not the A.Y. 2021-22. It was submitted that the assessee has filed the income tax return along with Form 10-IC on 29.03.2022, which is in line with the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rds, e-Filing team, Income Tax Department 10. Further, the ld.AR has also drawn our attention to Section 143(1) of the Act, whereby the CPC, Bangalore, was only authorized to make the adjustments listed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act. On the basis of the above, it was submitted that it is not permissible for the CPC to adjust the tax rate applied by the assessee, as no power has been granted to the CPC to make such adjustments. 11. In rebuttal, CIT-DR has submitted that the Board Circular pertains to the power of respective authority to condone the delay in filing Form 10-IC. However, no power has been granted to the authority to extend the time limit for filing the return of income. It was submitted that the filing of return of income should precede for the filing of Form 10-IC, or both should be done concurrently. 12. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Section 115BAA provides as under : Section 115BAA(5): "The option to be exercised under sub-section (1) shall be in such manner as may be prescribed, and such option once exercised shall apply to subsequent assessment years: Provided that in case of a person, having a Unit in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cifically withdraw for the same or any other previous year. 13.1 The second proviso to section 115BAA(5) makes it clear that once the option for the concessional tax regime under section 115BAA is exercised for any previous year, it cannot be subsequently withdrawn for the same or any other previous year. The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) had also issued frequently asked questions stating that if the taxpayer had opted for the concessional rate of tax once, that option would apply to subsequent AYs and could not be withdrawn. Even in the instructions issued by the CBDT for filing Form ITR 6, it was specifically mentioned that Form 10-IC was required to be filed only in the first year in which the taxpayer wished the concessional rate of tax to apply. Thus, not only the statutory provisions, but the periodic clarifications issued by the CBDT clearly state that a taxpayer seeking to benefit from the concessional rate of tax under section 115BAA need only exercise its option on Form 10-IC once in the initial AY; there was no requirement to exercise the option again in subsequent years. 14. In the present case, as admitted by both the parties, the last date of filing of return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in favour of the assessee, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs. Dilip Kumar reported in Civil Appeal No. 3327 of 2007, has held as under : "40. After considering the various authorities, some of which are adverted to above, we are compelled to observe how true it is to say that there exists unsatisfactory state of law in relation to interpretation of exemption clauses. Various Benches which decided the question of interpretation of taxing statute on one hand and exemption notification on the other, have broadly assumed (we are justified to say this) that the position is well settled in the interpretation of a taxing statute: It is the law that any ambiguity in a taxing statute should ensure to the benefit of the subject/assessee, but any ambiguity in the exemption clause of exemption notification must be conferred in favour of revenue - and such exemption should be allowed to be availed only to those subjects/assesses who demonstrate that a case for exemption squarely falls within the parameters enumerated in the notification and that the claimants satisfy all the conditions precedent for availing exemption. Presumably for this rea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
