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?
Yes, for AY 2021-22, if the three conditions in CBDT Circular No. 19/2023 dated 23 October 2023 are met. The Bombay High Court held that the Circular imposes no fourth condition — neither the fact that the return was already processed under s.143(1) and a demand raised, nor the fact that the shortfall was detected by the Assessing Officer rather than volunteered, takes the case outside it.
Decided by the High Court (B. P. Colabawalla J and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla J) on 2025-07-07, reported as Writ Petition No. 758 of 2025 (Bombay High Court). It bears on section 115BAA, section 115BAA(5), section 119(2)(b), section 139(1), section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Assessment & Scrutiny and How Tax Law Is Read matters.
This is the answer to the commonest Revenue objection to a Form 10-IC condonation application: 'you only applied after we caught you.' The Court's reasoning is that the CBDT wrote three conditions and the Commissioner may not add a fourth. It also matters that the Court set aside the order because the Commissioner had not even referred to the Circular — an order under s.119(2)(b) that ignores a Board circular directly in point is vulnerable on that ground alone. The limits are real: the first condition is that the return itself was filed within the s.139(1) due date, so a taxpayer whose return was belated gets no help from this Circular at all, and the outer three-year bar later imposed by Circular No. 17/2024 is a separate obstacle (see Mentaura Technologies).
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The petitioner, a domestic company, filed its return of income for AY 2021-22 under s.139(1) on 14 March 2022, one day before the due date of 15 March 2022, and opted for taxation under s.115BAA in item (e) of 'Filing Status' in 'Part A-GEN' of ITR-6. It did not file Form 10-IC with the return. The return was processed under s.143(1) by intimation dated 13 November 2022, the s.115BAA claim was rejected on the ground that Form 10-IC had not been furnished, and a demand of Rs. 11,25,423 was raised. The petitioner filed Form 10-IC on 16 November 2022 and then applied under s.119(2)(b) for condonation of the delay. A rectification application dated 18 September 2023 was rejected on 6 February 2024. The condonation application was dismissed by the Principal Commissioner on 30 December 2024 on the grounds that the Form had been filed with a delay of 247 days and that the condonation application itself had been made only after the demand was raised. The impugned order made no reference to Circular No. 19/2023.
The writ petition was allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). The order dated 30 December 2024 under s.119(2)(b) was quashed and set aside, the delay in filing Form 10-IC was condoned, and the respondents were directed to process the return on the basis that Form 10-IC had been filed within time. Rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.
The Court reproduced Circular No. 19/2023 in full and tested the petitioner's case against each of its three conditions: the return had been filed on 14 March 2022, within the s.139(1) due date of 15 March 2022 (first condition satisfied); the ITR-6 at page 99 of the paper book showed the s.115BAA option exercised in item (e) of 'Filing Status' in 'Part A-GEN' (second condition satisfied); and Form 10-IC had been filed on 16 November 2022, well within the outer date of 31 January 2024 or three months from the end of the month of issue, whichever was later (third condition satisfied) (para 10). The Revenue's argument that the Circular did not apply because the return had already been processed under s.143(1) and a demand raised was rejected because the Circular imposes no such condition, and the further argument that the Circular is confined to cases where the default is volunteered rather than detected by the Assessing Officer was rejected because the Circular draws no distinction as to who detects the delay (para 11). The Court also recorded that the impugned order did not refer to the Circular at all (para 8).
Merely because the Return is processed under Section 143(1) would not dis-entitle the Assessee from seeking condonation of delay in filing Form 10IC.
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 WhatsAppYes, for AY 2021-22, if the three conditions in CBDT Circular No. 19/2023 dated 23 October 2023 are met. The Bombay High Court held that the Circular imposes no fourth condition — neither the fact that the return was already processed under s.143(1) and a demand raised, nor the fact that the shortfall was detected by the Assessing Officer rather than volunteered, takes the case outside it. This was decided by the High Court (B. P. Colabawalla J and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla J) and bears on section 115BAA, section 115BAA(5), section 119(2)(b), section 139(1), section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as Writ Petition No. 758 of 2025 (Bombay High Court). This is the answer to the commonest Revenue objection to a Form 10-IC condonation application: 'you only applied after we caught you.' The Court's reasoning is that the CBDT wrote three conditions and the Commissioner may not add a fourth. It also matters that the Court set aside the order because the Commissioner had not even referred to the Circular — an order under s.119(2)(b) that ignores a Board circular directly in point is vulnerable on that ground alone. The limits are real: the first condition is that the return itself was filed within the s.139(1) due date, so a taxpayer whose return was belated gets no help from this Circular at all, and the outer three-year bar later imposed by Circular No. 17/2024 is a separate obstacle (see Mentaura Technologies). If it applies to you, the first step is this: Check the three conditions in Circular No. 19/2023 one by one against your file: return filed on or before the s.139(1) due date; s.115BAA opted in item (e) of 'Filing Status' in 'Part A-GEN' of ITR-6; Form 10-IC filed electronically on or before 31 January 2024 or three months from the end of October 2023, whichever is later.
The petitioner, a domestic company, filed its return of income for AY 2021-22 under s.139(1) on 14 March 2022, one day before the due date of 15 March 2022, and opted for taxation under s.115BAA in item (e) of 'Filing Status' in 'Part A-GEN' of ITR-6. It did not file Form 10-IC with the return. The return was processed under s.143(1) by intimation dated 13 November 2022, the s.115BAA claim was rejected on the ground that Form 10-IC had not been furnished, and a demand of Rs. 11,25,423 was raised. The petitioner filed Form 10-IC on 16 November 2022 and then applied under s.119(2)(b) for condonation of the delay. A rectification application dated 18 September 2023 was rejected on 6 February 2024. The condonation application was dismissed by the Principal Commissioner on 30 December 2024 on the grounds that the Form had been filed with a delay of 247 days and that the condonation application itself had been made only after the demand was raised. The impugned order made no reference to Circular No. 19/2023. The matter was decided on 2025-07-07 by the High Court (B. P. Colabawalla J and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla J). On those facts the High Court held as follows. The writ petition was allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). The order dated 30 December 2024 under s.119(2)(b) was quashed and set aside, the delay in filing Form 10-IC was condoned, and the respondents were directed to process the return on the basis that Form 10-IC had been filed within time. Rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.
The Court reproduced Circular No. 19/2023 in full and tested the petitioner's case against each of its three conditions: the return had been filed on 14 March 2022, within the s.139(1) due date of 15 March 2022 (first condition satisfied); the ITR-6 at page 99 of the paper book showed the s.115BAA option exercised in item (e) of 'Filing Status' in 'Part A-GEN' (second condition satisfied); and Form 10-IC had been filed on 16 November 2022, well within the outer date of 31 January 2024 or three months from the end of the month of issue, whichever was later (third condition satisfied) (para 10). The Revenue's argument that the Circular did not apply because the return had already been processed under s.143(1) and a demand raised was rejected because the Circular imposes no such condition, and the further argument that the Circular is confined to cases where the default is volunteered rather than detected by the Assessing Officer was rejected because the Circular draws no distinction as to who detects the delay (para 11). The Court also recorded that the impugned order did not refer to the Circular at all (para 8). In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "Merely because the Return is processed under Section 143(1) would not dis-entitle the Assessee from seeking condonation of delay in filing Form 10IC."
It was decided by the High Court on 2025-07-07 and is reported as Writ Petition No. 758 of 2025 (Bombay High Court). 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), 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 in terms of prayer clause (a). The order dated 30 December 2024 under s.119(2)(b) was quashed and set aside, the delay in filing Form 10-IC was condoned, and the respondents were directed to process the return on the basis that Form 10-IC had been filed within time. Rule was made absolute with no order as to costs. 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) of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by B. P. Colabawalla J and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla 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 ITR-6 page showing item (e) of Part A-GEN and the Form 10-IC acknowledgement on record as exhibits — the Court decided the case on those two documents and identified them by paper-book page. If the rejection order does not mention the applicable circular, take that as a discrete ground: the order is unreasoned to that extent. Meet the 'you applied only after detection' argument head-on by pointing to the absence of any such condition in the Circular; do not argue it only on equity. Identify which circular governs your assessment year before drafting: Circular 6/2022 for AY 2020-21, Circular 19/2023 for AY 2021-22, Circular 17/2024 for AY 2020-21 to 2022-23 with a three-year outer limit. For AY 2023-24 onwards there is no blanket circular and the application is a bare s.119(2)(b) application.
Validity check could not be completed. Validity check could not be completed. No search for later treatment of this order was run. Note that the CBDT superseded Circular No. 19/2023 by Circular No. 17/2024, which extends condonation to AY 2020-21 to 2022-23 but bars any application made more than three years from the end of the assessment year; the Delhi High Court applied that bar in Mentaura Technologies Pvt Ltd v PCIT (29 April 2026). This decision was on an application already made and pending, so the three-year bar did not arise on its facts. 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.
The order records the delay inconsistently — para 2 notes it as 247 days, with the Petition's prayer clause (a) putting it at 295 days, and the Court reproduced the prayer clause with the 295-day figure when allowing the petition. Para 5 gives the date of the condonation application as 16 January 2023 while para 8 gives 18 January 2023. Para 4 gives the s.143(1) intimation as 13 November 2022 while para 8 refers to the demand having been raised on 27 October 2022. None of these affects the reasoning, which turns on the three conditions of the Circular. 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 in terms of prayer clause (a). The order dated 30 December 2024 under s.119(2)(b) was quashed and set aside, the delay in filing Form 10-IC was condoned, and the respondents were directed to process the return on the basis that Form 10-IC had been filed within time. Rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
My return was only processed under 143(1). Does that stop the department reopening it later?
The CBDT rejected my condonation application without dealing with my reasons. Can I challenge that?
A declaration was required by the due date and you filed it late. Is that fatal?
I did not tick s.115BAA in the return and filed Form 10-IC late. Can I still get the concessional rate?