The Commissioner rejected my Form 10-IC condonation application as time-barred under Circular 17/2024, counting from the date of my application and ignoring that I had actually filed the Form years earlier. Is that right?
No. The Rajasthan High Court set aside the rejection, holding that it was legally unsustainable because it conflated the date of filing of Form 10-IC with the date of the formal condonation application. The Form having been filed on 30 January 2023, within three years of the end of AY 2020-21, and the s.115BAA option having been unambiguously exercised in the return itself, the delay was condoned and the matter remanded with a direction that the authority not consider delay or limitation again.
Decided by the High Court (Arun Monga J and Mahendar Kumar Goyal J) on 2026-05-04, reported as D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4556/2026; Neutral Citation 2026:RJ-JD:21098-DB (Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur). It bears on section 115BAA, section 115BAA(5), section 119(2)(b), section 139(1), section 143(1), section 156 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Assessment & Scrutiny and How Tax Law Is Read matters.
This is the counterweight to the Delhi High Court's decision in Mentaura Technologies on the three-year bar in para 5 of Circular No. 17/2024, and the distinction it draws is one to plead expressly: the three-year period is measured against the act that matters, and where the Form itself went in within the window a condonation application filed later out of abundant caution should not be the thing that is timed out. The case also illustrates a fact pattern worth recognising — the option under s.115BAA had already been accepted in earlier appellate proceedings and the objection about Form 10-IC surfaced only during remand proceedings before the Assessing Officer. A second point the petitioner took, and which the Court did not need to decide separately, is that the material had in fact been furnished within time but at the local jurisdictional office rather than to the Chief Commissioner.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The petitioner, a domestic company manufacturing asbestos cement pressure pipes and corrugated roofing sheets, filed its return in Form ITR-6 for AY 2020-21 on 9 January 2021 within the extended due date, declaring total income of Rs. 5,21,66,960 and opting for taxation under s.115BAA at 22 per cent. The Centralised Processing Centre, processing the return under s.143(1), applied the normal rate and raised a demand. The National Faceless Appeal Centre accepted that the option under s.115BAA had been exercised and directed the Assessing Officer to apply the concessional rate; the Tribunal thereafter remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication of legal issues without disturbing the finding on the option. During the remand proceedings the Assessing Officer raised an objection about non-filing of Form 10-IC. The petitioner, having believed that exercise of the option in the return was sufficient compliance, filed Form 10-IC on 30 January 2023 with an explanation that the lapse was procedural and bona fide. The Assessing Officer did not consider the Form and denied the s.115BAA benefit, with a consequential demand under s.156. The petitioner then applied under s.119(2)(b) relying on Circular No. 17/2024, and that application was rejected by the Chief Commissioner by order dated 22 December 2025 on the ground of delay beyond the prescribed period and absence of sufficient justification. The Revenue's case was that Rule 21AE requires Form 10-IC to be filed on or before the s.139(1) due date and that s.115BAA(5) makes timely filing mandatory rather than procedural.
The writ petition was allowed. The order dated 22 December 2025 was set aside, the delay in filing the declaration and Form 10-IC was condoned, and the matter was remanded to the competent authority for a fresh decision on merits, with an express direction that the authority shall not consider the issue of delay or limitation while deciding the matter.
Taking a wholesome view, the Court held the assessee entitled to the benefit of Circular No. 17/2024 for four cumulative reasons stated at para 16: all three substantive conditions of the Circular stood satisfied (16.1); Form 10-IC was actually filed on 30 January 2023, which is within the three-year window from the end of AY 2020-21 (16.2); the rejection on grounds of maintainability was legally unsustainable since it conflates the date of filing of Form 10-IC with the date of the formal condonation application (16.3); and the option under s.115BAA was unambiguously exercised in the ITR itself, leaving no doubt as to the assessee's intent (16.4). To deny the benefit in those circumstances would be to allow a procedural technicality to defeat a substantive and clearly established right (para 17).
Therefore, to deny the benefit in these circumstances would be to allow a procedural technicality to defeat a substantive and clearly established right, a result that is contrary to both the letter and spirit of the CBDT Circulars and the settled canons of statutory interpretation.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppNo. The Rajasthan High Court set aside the rejection, holding that it was legally unsustainable because it conflated the date of filing of Form 10-IC with the date of the formal condonation application. The Form having been filed on 30 January 2023, within three years of the end of AY 2020-21, and the s.115BAA option having been unambiguously exercised in the return itself, the delay was condoned and the matter remanded with a direction that the authority not consider delay or limitation again. This was decided by the High Court (Arun Monga J and Mahendar Kumar Goyal J) and bears on section 115BAA, section 115BAA(5), section 119(2)(b), section 139(1), section 143(1), section 156 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4556/2026; Neutral Citation 2026:RJ-JD:21098-DB (Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur). This is the counterweight to the Delhi High Court's decision in Mentaura Technologies on the three-year bar in para 5 of Circular No. 17/2024, and the distinction it draws is one to plead expressly: the three-year period is measured against the act that matters, and where the Form itself went in within the window a condonation application filed later out of abundant caution should not be the thing that is timed out. The case also illustrates a fact pattern worth recognising — the option under s.115BAA had already been accepted in earlier appellate proceedings and the objection about Form 10-IC surfaced only during remand proceedings before the Assessing Officer. A second point the petitioner took, and which the Court did not need to decide separately, is that the material had in fact been furnished within time but at the local jurisdictional office rather than to the Chief Commissioner. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Separate the two dates in your application and in any writ petition: the date Form 10-IC was actually filed and the date of the formal s.119(2)(b) application. Argue the three-year measure against the first.
The petitioner, a domestic company manufacturing asbestos cement pressure pipes and corrugated roofing sheets, filed its return in Form ITR-6 for AY 2020-21 on 9 January 2021 within the extended due date, declaring total income of Rs. 5,21,66,960 and opting for taxation under s.115BAA at 22 per cent. The Centralised Processing Centre, processing the return under s.143(1), applied the normal rate and raised a demand. The National Faceless Appeal Centre accepted that the option under s.115BAA had been exercised and directed the Assessing Officer to apply the concessional rate; the Tribunal thereafter remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication of legal issues without disturbing the finding on the option. During the remand proceedings the Assessing Officer raised an objection about non-filing of Form 10-IC. The petitioner, having believed that exercise of the option in the return was sufficient compliance, filed Form 10-IC on 30 January 2023 with an explanation that the lapse was procedural and bona fide. The Assessing Officer did not consider the Form and denied the s.115BAA benefit, with a consequential demand under s.156. The petitioner then applied under s.119(2)(b) relying on Circular No. 17/2024, and that application was rejected by the Chief Commissioner by order dated 22 December 2025 on the ground of delay beyond the prescribed period and absence of sufficient justification. The Revenue's case was that Rule 21AE requires Form 10-IC to be filed on or before the s.139(1) due date and that s.115BAA(5) makes timely filing mandatory rather than procedural. The matter was decided on 2026-05-04 by the High Court (Arun Monga J and Mahendar Kumar Goyal J). On those facts the High Court held as follows. The writ petition was allowed. The order dated 22 December 2025 was set aside, the delay in filing the declaration and Form 10-IC was condoned, and the matter was remanded to the competent authority for a fresh decision on merits, with an express direction that the authority shall not consider the issue of delay or limitation while deciding the matter.
Taking a wholesome view, the Court held the assessee entitled to the benefit of Circular No. 17/2024 for four cumulative reasons stated at para 16: all three substantive conditions of the Circular stood satisfied (16.1); Form 10-IC was actually filed on 30 January 2023, which is within the three-year window from the end of AY 2020-21 (16.2); the rejection on grounds of maintainability was legally unsustainable since it conflates the date of filing of Form 10-IC with the date of the formal condonation application (16.3); and the option under s.115BAA was unambiguously exercised in the ITR itself, leaving no doubt as to the assessee's intent (16.4). To deny the benefit in those circumstances would be to allow a procedural technicality to defeat a substantive and clearly established right (para 17). In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "Therefore, to deny the benefit in these circumstances would be to allow a procedural technicality to defeat a substantive and clearly established right, a result that is contrary to both the letter and spirit of the CBDT Circulars and the settled canons of statutory interpretation."
It was decided by the High Court on 2026-05-04 and is reported as D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4556/2026; Neutral Citation 2026:RJ-JD:21098-DB (Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur). Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A High Court decision binds the assessing officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within that state, and is persuasive elsewhere. If your assessment is in a different jurisdiction, check whether your own High Court has taken the same view before relying on it. On section 115BAA, section 115BAA(5), section 119(2)(b), section 139(1), section 143(1), section 156, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. The writ petition was allowed. The order dated 22 December 2025 was set aside, the delay in filing the declaration and Form 10-IC was condoned, and the matter was remanded to the competent authority for a fresh decision on merits, with an express direction that the authority shall not consider the issue of delay or limitation while deciding the matter. It arises in Assessment & Scrutiny and How Tax Law Is Read matters, on section 115BAA, section 115BAA(5), section 119(2)(b), section 139(1), section 143(1), section 156 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Arun Monga J and Mahendar Kumar Goyal J. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Put the earlier appellate findings on record where an appellate authority has already accepted that the s.115BAA option was exercised; the Court treated the reopening of that question as a serious defect in the impugned order. Where the Form or the material was lodged with the wrong office, plead that fact and the date of lodgement rather than abandoning it — it was pleaded here in the alternative. Ask, as this Court did, for a remand with an express direction that the authority shall not revisit delay or limitation; a bare remand invites a second rejection on the same ground. Do not treat this as displacing the three-year bar where the Form itself was filed outside the window — on those facts Mentaura Technologies is the closer authority.
High Courts differ on this point. The Rajasthan and Delhi High Courts are in direct conflict on this point and no Supreme Court decision resolves it, so the answer may turn on where the matter is filed. Both judgments were read. Here the Rajasthan High Court (4 May 2026) held that 'Circular No. 17/2024 read with Circular No. 19/2023 contemplates condonation of delay in filing of Form 10-IC, not delay in filing the condonation application as a standalone procedural exercise'. Form 10-IC having been filed on 30 January 2023, within three years of the end of AY 2020-21, the rejection was set aside as legally unsustainable even though the condonation application was made only on 28 December 2024; the matter was remitted with the direction that the authority 'shall not consider the issue of delay or limitation while deciding the matter'. Five days earlier, on the same assessment year and the same para 5 of the same Circular, the Delhi High Court in Mentaura Technologies Pvt Ltd v PCIT (W.P.(C) 4449/2026, 29 April 2026, doc 197724998) read the three-year bar as attaching to the condonation application, fixed the outer limit for AY 2020-21 at 31 March 2024, and dismissed the petition because the application was made on 20 January 2025. A targeted search for other High Court decisions on para 5 of the Circular returned only these two, and nothing later cites either. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
I read paragraphs 1 to 5 and 16 to 19 verbatim. Paragraphs 6 to 15, which contain the Court's discussion of the circulars and of the authorities cited, were not retrieved, so the reasoning below is limited to the enumerated grounds the Court itself set out in para 16. The order records reliance by the petitioner on a Delhi High Court decision in A.C. Surgipharma Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, which I did not retrieve and about which I say nothing. The petitioner is described as formerly M/s A Infrastructure Limited. On the date of Circular No. 17/2024 see the note to the Mentaura Technologies entry. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The writ petition was allowed. The order dated 22 December 2025 was set aside, the delay in filing the declaration and Form 10-IC was condoned, and the matter was remanded to the competent authority for a fresh decision on merits, with an express direction that the authority shall not consider the issue of delay or limitation while deciding the matter.
TaxSphere, “M/s Kanoria Energy and Infrastructure Ltd v CCIT”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/kanoria-energy-v-ccit-form-10-ic-filing-date-not-application-date/ (validity last checked 2026-09-08)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
I opted for s.115BAA in my return but filed Form 10-IC late, and my return itself was belated. CBDT has refused to condone the delay because Circular No. 6/2022 requires the return to have been filed within the s.139(1) due date. Is that a good reason?
My start-up's Inter-Ministerial Board certificate for s.80-IAC was refused, so I switched to s.115BAA and filed Form 10-IC 53 days late for AY 2022-23. There is no blanket circular for that year. Can the delay be condoned?
I filed my return in time and ticked s.115BAA in the ITR-6, but Form 10-IC went in late and the CPC has already processed the return and raised a demand. Can the delay still be condoned?
The portal would not accept Form 10-IC for FY 2019-20 before the Circular 6/2022 cut-off of 30 June 2022, and I filed it physically eleven days late. Is the s.115BAA benefit lost?
