SUJATA KOHLI,DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 67(1), DELHI, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3188/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 July 2025AY 2023-24Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)1 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 the compliance of filing Form 10-IE is a directory and not a mandatory provision. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's ground and directed the assessing authority to finalize computation.

What were the facts?

The assessee sought to be assessed under the newly introduced scheme u/s 115BAC. However, the lower authorities rejected the claim because Form 10-IE was filed after the prescribed date.

What were the issues?

Whether the filing of Form 10-IE after the prescribed date makes the claim under Section 115BAC invalid, considering it as a directory provision.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 115BAC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

Hearing: 23.07.2025Pronounced: 23.07.2025

Asstt. Year: 2023-24 Sujata Kohli, Vs DCIT, 10, Gagan Vihar (Main), Circle-67(1), Delhi-110051 Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ABHPK0487H Assessee by: Sh. Rahul Prabhakar, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 23.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 23.07.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2023-24 arises against the Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Lucknow’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1074704556(1) dated 19.03.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

It transpires during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have rejected the assessee’s claim to be assessed under a newly introduced scheme u/s 115BAC for the sole reason that sole reason that she had filed/uploaded the corresponding prescribed Form 10-IE well after the prescribed date.

Sujata Kohli 4. This being the clinching factual position, the tribunal in Harbans Singh Vs. AO, CPC (2024) 165 taxmann.com 146 (Amritsar Trib.) has already concluded that the above compliance of filing of the uploaded Form 10-IE is a directory than a mandatory provision. I accordingly accept the assessee’s instant sole substantive ground in principle in very terms and direct the assessing authority to finalize it’s consequential computation after verification of all the relevant facts as per law.

More judgments on Section 115BAC

All 144 judgments and leading authorities on Section 115BAC →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →