"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,अहमदाबाद \bयायपीठ अहमदाबाद \bयायपीठ अहमदाबाद \bयायपीठ अहमदाबाद \bयायपीठ ‘C’ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD ]BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAKARAND V.MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1069/Ahd/2025 Asstt.Year : 2020-21 M/s.Medip Healthtech Pvt. Ltd. SF-210, Devashish Business Park Nr.Popular Domeinn, Satellite Ahmedabad. PAN : AAKCM 0291 J Vs. The DCIT, Cir.2(1)(1) Vejalpur Ahmedabad. (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee by : Ms.Vinata Bhura, AR Revenue by : Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr.DR सुनवाई क तारीख/Date of Hearing : 16/10/2025 घोषणा क तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 17/10/2025 आदेश आदेश आदेश आदेश/O R D E R PER MAKARAND V.MAHADEOKAR, AM: This appeal by the assessee arises from the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)”], dated 06.03.2025, for the Assessment Year 2020–21, against the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] dated 11.10.2021. 2. Facts of the Case 2.1 The assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2020–21 on 29.09.2020, declaring total income of Rs.1,13,55,020/-. In the return of income, the assessee had opted for taxation under section 115BAA at the concessional rate of 22%, which was duly reflected in Part A–GEN of ITR-6. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1069/Ahd/2025 2 The return was processed by the CPC, Bengaluru, under section 143(1) on 11.10.2021. 2.2 While processing the return, the CPC made the following adjustments: Particular As per Return (Rs.) As per 143(1) (Rs.) Difference / Remarks Total Income 1,13,55,020 1,17,95,917 Disallowance u/s 43B of Rs. 4,40,894/- Tax Rate Applied 22% (u/s 115BAA) 30% (Normal Rate) CPC denied concessional rate alleging non-filing of Form No. 10-IC Net Tax Payable Nil Rs. 13,06,300 Demand raised vide intimation 2.3 Subsequently, the CPC suo motu passed a rectification order under section 154 dated 26.04.2022, allowing deduction under section 43B, reducing total income to Rs.1,13,55,020/- and consequently reducing demand to Rs.11,26,200/-. However, CPC continued to apply the old rate of 30%, holding that the assessee had not furnished Form No. 10-IC electronically as required under Rule 21AE. 2.4 The assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee contended that it had opted for section 115BAA in the ITR, which is a clear and conscious declaration of intent and the CPC’s adjustment was mechanical and without giving an opportunity. It was also contended that the non-filing of Form No. 10-IC was a technical lapse, especially considering that A.Y. 2020–21 was the first year of introduction of section 115BAA and that the period fell during COVID-19 disruptions. 2.5 The CIT(A), however, rejected the contention observing that Rule 21AE mandates filing of Form No. 10-IC electronically with digital signature or EVC to exercise the option under section 115BAA(5) and the assessee had not filed Form No. 10-IC, and hence the option was not validly exercised. The CIT(A) also concluded that the CPC had rightly processed the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1069/Ahd/2025 3 return at the normal rate of 30%. Accordingly, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. 2.6 Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds: 1. The Honorable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred on facts and in law in not giving benefit of taxation at the rate of 22% under section 115BAA. 2. The Honorable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not considering the fact that the assessee has opted for taxation under section 115BAA in the Income Tax Return. 3. On facts tax ought to have been calculated at the rate of 22% and the tax as calculated by the appellant in the income tax return ought to have been accepted. 4. The Honorable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not giving any hearing opportunity to the appellant before passing an unfavourable order. 5. The appellant craves leave to add / to alter and / or modify any grounds of appeal. 3. During the course of hearing before us, the Authorised Representative (AR) reiterated the above facts and further submitted that the assessee filed an application under section 119(2)(b) before the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Ahmedabad, seeking condonation of delay in filing Form No. 10-IC for A.Y. 2020–21. It was also stated that the PCIT, Ahmedabad, after obtaining a report from the Assessing Officer, DCIT Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad, passed a condonation order dated 11.09.2025, allowing the assessee’s application and granting permission to file Form No. 10-IC. 3.1 The AR placed a copy of the PCIT’s order on record and prayed that the matter be restored to the Assessing Officer with a direction to recompute the tax at the concessional rate of 22% under section 115BAA after taking into consideration the condonation granted under section 119(2)(b). 3.2 The Departmental Representative (DR) fairly submitted that he had no objection if the matter is restored to the Assessing Officer for verification and giving effect to the PCIT’s condonation order. 4. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and examined the material on record. The sequence of events is undisputed. It is now an Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1069/Ahd/2025 4 admitted position that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Ahmedabad, vide order dated 11.09.2025, has condoned the delay under section 119(2)(b) and granted permission to file Form No. 10-IC for A.Y. 2020–21. The relevant finding from the PCIT’s order reads as under: “Considering the above facts and the report of the AO, the application of the assessee for condonation of delay under section 119(2)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for filing Form No. 10-IC for A.Y. 2020–21 is hereby granted.” 4.1 The effect of such condonation is that the assessee’s option under section 115BAA stands validly exercised. The denial of concessional rate at 22% under section 115BAA, which formed the sole ground of dispute in the appeal, thus no longer survives. 4.2 In view of the foregoing discussion, and considering that the delay in filing Form No. 10-IC has been condoned under section 119(2)(b), we deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with the following directions: i. The Assessing Officer shall take cognizance of the condonation order dated 11.09.2025 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Ahmedabad under section 119(2)(b). ii. The Assessing Officer shall verify that Form No. 10-IC has been duly filed electronically and shall thereafter recompute the tax liability at the concessional rate of 22% under section 115BAA. iii. The assessee shall be afforded due opportunity of being heard before giving effect to this direction. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 17th October, 2025 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad, dated 17/10/2025 Printed from counselvise.com "