PCIT Must Apply CBDT Condonation Circular Universally to All Assessment Years to Mitigate Genuine Hardship for Form 10IC

By | June 11, 2026

PCIT Must Apply CBDT Condonation Circular Universally to All Assessment Years to Mitigate Genuine Hardship for Form 10IC

Issue

Whether a Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) Circular issued under Section 119(2)(b) to condone delays in filing Form 10IC to mitigate genuine hardship is applicable universally to all assessment years (including Assessment Year 2023-24), or whether it should be strictly restricted only to the specific assessment years expressly mentioned in the circular.

Facts

  • The Option: The assessee intended to opt for the concessional tax rate for domestic companies under Section 115BAA, which requires the electronic filing of Form 10IC.

  • The Delay: Due to an oversight by the accountant, neither the income tax return nor Form 10IC was filed within the statutory due date prescribed under Section 139(1).

  • The Filing: The assessee subsequently filed a belated return under Section 139(4). However, the online portal did not permit the submission of Form 10IC since the system required it to be filed strictly within the Section 139(1) deadline.

  • Condonation Application: To rectify this, the assessee filed an application under Section 119(2)(b) before the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) seeking a condonation of the delay in filing Form 10IC.

  • The Rejection: The PCIT rejected the application, citing that CBDT Circular No. 17/2024 (dated 18.11.2024) specifically addressed delays for other years and did not explicitly explicitly mention Assessment Year 2023-24.

  • The Challenge: The assessee challenged this rigid restriction, arguing that beneficial circulars meant to alleviate hardship should be interpreted broadly.

Decision

  • Circular Is Prospective and Universal: The High Court held that the CBDT Circular dated 18.11.2024, issued to mitigate genuine hardships of taxpayers, must apply to all Assessment Years. The reference to specific assessment years within the text of the circular was merely incidental.

  • No Artificial Boundaries: The operational scope of the Circular dated 18.11.2024 cannot be confined strictly to AY 2022-23. It will continue to apply to all such cases of delay—even for periods after its date of issuance—unless the CBDT explicitly provides otherwise.

  • Clarification on Other Circulars: It was noted that the prior Circular dated 01.10.2024 did not contain any specific stipulations regarding the condonation of delay for filing statutory forms, including Form 10IC.

  • Impugned Order Set Aside: The Supreme Court/High Court set aside the PCIT’s restrictive rejection order. The PCIT was directed to reconsider the assessee’s case on its merits and in accordance with the law, treating the beneficial circular as fully applicable to AY 2023-24.

Key Takeaways

  • Beneficial Circulars Demand Liberal Interpretation: Circulars issued by the CBDT under Section 119(2)(b) are beneficial pieces of administrative relief designed to mitigate “genuine hardship.” They must be interpreted liberally to advance justice rather than being restricted by literal omissions of a specific assessment year.

  • Procedural Lapses Do Not Negate Substantive Rights: A technical delay in filing Form 10IC (even due to an accountant’s error) can be condoned by the tax authorities if genuine hardship is proven, ensuring that eligible domestic companies are not permanently stripped of concessional tax rates.

  • Ongoing Application: Relief circular for statutory forms remains active and applicable to successive assessment years unless the CBDT issues an explicit notification to withdraw or limit its powers.

HIGH COURT OF DELHI
VRG Electronics (P.) Ltd.
v.
Principal Commissioner of Income-tax Delhi 7
Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar, JJ.
W.P.(C) 2625 OF 2026
CM APPL. 12771 OF 2026
APRIL  9, 2026
Shahrukh Ejaz and Ganiul Hakim, Advs. for the Petitioner. Puneet Rai, SSC and Ashvini Kumar, JSC for the Respondent.
JUDGMENT
Dinesh Mehta, J. – By way of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged order dated 12.12.2025, passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, PCIT, Delhi-7 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commissioner’) whereby the petitioner’s application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’) was rejected.
2. The order impugned was passed pursuant to an application which was filed by the petitioner-assessee on 20.11.2025, wherein it had sought condonation of delay in filing Form 10IC (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Form’) for AY 2023-24, which is necessary for exercising the option under Section 115BAA of the Act of 1961.
3. By moving the application, the assessee had submitted that though it was required to furnish the Form by due date of return i.e., 31.10.2023, but due to a lapse on the part of the accountant, neither the return was filed by the due date, nor was the Form furnished.
4. While informing that the Return of Income was filed on 30.12.2023 i.e., within the time period given under Section 139(4) of the Act of 1961, Mr. Shahrukh Ejaz, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Form could not be furnished as the timeline for furnishing the Form is only up to the last date of filing return as given under Section 139(1) of the Act of 1961.
5. Mr. Ejaz further submitted that when the application came up for consideration before the Commissioner, he rejected the same by simply stating that AY 2023-24 is not mentioned in the applicable Circular No.17/2024 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (hereinafter referred to as ‘CBDT’) on 18.11.2024.
6. He argued that the Commissioner has erred in rejecting the petitioner’s application and ignoring the previous circular issued by the CBDT on 01.10.2024, being Circular No.11/2024. He argued that the Circular dated 01.10.2024 gives power to Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (hereinafter referred to as ‘PCIT’) to condone delay in moving application for refund or set-off and simply because the subsequent Circular dated 18.11.2024 does not make a reference of AY 2023-24, the petitioner’s application could not have been rejected.
7. Mr. Puneet Rai, learned senior standing counsel for the respondents, on the other hand submitted that maybe for seeking refund, the Circular dated 01.10.2024 was applicable and the Commissioner could have done so, but since the petitioner’s application contained two prayers-the first in relation to grant of refund and the other in relation to acceptance of the Form, only the Circular dated 18.11.2024 would apply. He emphasized that unless the petitioner’s Form is allowed to be uploaded or accepted, the application for refund simpliciter would be of no avail, as for claiming adjustment or applicability of lesser rate of tax, the condition of furnishing of the Form, which is a condition precedent to claim benefit under Section 115BAA of the Act of 1961, has to be satisfied.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
9. It is not disputed that the petitioner had filed its Return of Income on 30.12.2023 under Section 139(4) of the Act of 1961 during the extended period provided for filing the return. But, when it comes to submitting the Form, the legislative mandate is that the same has to be filed up to the due date of filing return, which at the relevant time was undisputedly 31.10.2023. Therefore, there can be no gainsaying the fact that there was a delay in filing the Form.
10. So far as the Circular dated 01.10.2024 is concerned, it does not contain any stipulation regarding condonation of delay in filing the forms, including Form 10IC. If the petitioner wished to claim such relief, it has to take recourse to the Circular dated 18.11.2024, which in specific terms, provides that the PCIT or the Commissioner, as the case may be, shall have power to condone delay in filing the prescribed forms.
11. But then, the circular dated 18.11.2024, ironically, it does not make reference to AY 2023-24.
12. Technically speaking, the Commissioner may be right in holding that since the Circular dated 18.11.2024 does not apply to the cases related to AY 2023-24, he cannot give relief as prayed by the petitioner. We are however of the view that such strict approach, if approved by this Court, would lead to anomalous situation and injustice in genuine cases.
13. In light of the Circular dated 18.11.2024, it can conveniently be said that the same had been issued with a view to deal with cases of genuine hardship and reference of Assessment Years is only incidental and as a matter of fact insignificant, if not irrelevant. Specific purpose of confining the circular dated 18.11.2024 to the Assessment Years 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23 has neither been given in the circular, nor can any palatable justification be found for such restriction.
14. We, therefore, hold that the Circular which has been issued by the CBDT in exercise of powers under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act of 1961, shall apply to all genuine and bona fide cases, irrespective of the Assessment Year. Because, we find no direct nexus of the Assessment Year vis-a-vis the purpose for which the said Circular has been issued – if the purpose is to mitigate genuine hardship, the hardship cannot be confined to particular year or years. If the advantage of a beneficial Circular is not given to all the assessees for all the years, it shall defeat the very purpose for which it was issued.
15. The Circular dated 18.11.2024 shall therefore, not be confined to AY 2022-23 and the same shall continue to apply for all such cases even for the period after 18.11.2024 unless CBDT by way of conscious application of mind provides otherwise.
16. In view of above interpretation/declaration, we set aside the impugned order dated 12.12.2025 passed by the Commissioner and direct him to decide the petitioner’s case in accordance with law (while holding the Circular dated 18.11.2024 to be applicable in the present case). PCIT
17. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. The pending application is also disposed of.