VIJANDER PRASAD GUPTA,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD- 52(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2849/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 August 2025AY 2024-25Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)4 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that an inadvertent error in opting for the tax regime should not deprive the assessee from being assessed under the newly chosen regime. The AO was directed to reframe the computation.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed their computation under the new tax regime (Section 115BAC(1)) but was assessed under the old regime. The lower authorities upheld this assessment.

What were the issues?

Whether an assessee can be assessed under the old tax regime due to an inadvertent error when they opted for the new regime under Section 115BAC(1)?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 115BAC(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Appellant: Adv. Sh. Anunav Kumar, Adv
Hearing: 21.08.2025Pronounced: 21.08.2025

Assessment Year: 2024-25 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sh. Vijender Prasad Gupta, 206, Star Tower, Sector-30, Ward-52(1), Gurugram New Delhi PAN: AAAPG4431D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. V.P. Gupta, Adv. Sh. Anunav Kumar, Adv. Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 21.08.2025 Date of pronouncement 21.08.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2024-25, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl./JCIT(A), Panaji’s order dated 20.03.2025 having DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1074740552(1), involving proceedings under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee/appellant is aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities’ action assessing under the old regime than that under the new one under section 115BAC(1) of the Act for the precise reason that he had opted for the former scheme only, in the CPC’s processing dated 23.11.2024 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

3. It is in this factual backdrop that the Revenue vehemently argued that both the learned lower authorities’ action assessing the assessee herein under the old scheme does not require any interference. It ccould hardly dispute the clinching fact that the assessee had filed the computation under the new regime only whereas it stands assessed under the old scheme because of alleged failure to give the correct option.

3.

Be that as it may, this tribunal’s learned coordinate bench in Akshay Nitin Malu Vs. ITO (ITA No. 1651/Pune/2024, dated 3rd January, 2025) has already settled the issue in assessee’s favour and against the department that such an inadvertent error or otherwise; as the case may be, could not deprive the assessee from getting assessed under the new regime. The tribunal hereby finds merit in the assessee’s instant sole substantive ground and directs the learned Assessing Officer to frame it fresh appropriate computation as per law.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →