The assessee sought benefit of concessional tax under s. 115BAA for AY 2020-21 but had not exercised the option before the due date for filing the return under s. 139(1). In the return of income (Part A-GEN), against the specific column regarding option under S.. 115BA/115BAA/115BAB, the assessee had expressly responded “none of above”. The plea that there was no specific box to exercise the option was found to be factually incorrect. The contention that the option was intended but inadvertently not indicated was also rejected, particularly when the computation of depreciation was not in conformity with S. 115BAA(2). Reliance on CBDT Circular No. 6/2022 dated 17-3-2022 was held misplaced, as the Circular merely condoned delay in filing Form 10-IC in specified cases but did not relax the statutory requirement that the option must be exercised in the return filed within the time prescribed under S. 139(1). Clause (ii) of para 3 of the Circular makes it clear that condonation was available only where the assessee had opted for lower taxation under S. 115BAA in the return. Since the assessee had not done so, it did not satisfy the stipulated conditions. The writ petition challenging the assessment order was dismissed.(AY. 2020-21)
Sarla Holdings (P) Ltd. v. PCIT (2025) 345 CTR 129 / 179 taxmann.com 83 (Delhi)(HC) Editorial : SLP dismissed, Sarla Holdings (P) Ltd. v. PCIT (2025)307 Taxman 446 (SC)
S. 115BAA : Tax on income of certain domestic companies-Exercise of option-Revised return-Non-filing of Form 10-IC-CBDT Circular condoning delay does not relax requirement of exercising option in return filed under S. 139(1)-Assessee having expressly stated “none of above” not eligible-Writ dismissed [S. 115BA, 115BAB, 139(1), Art. 226, Form 10-IC]
Leave a Reply