JUHU ROSE CO. HSG SOC. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 34(2)(1), MUMBAI

The present appeal preferred by the Assessee is directed against the order, dated 26/03/2025, passed by theAdditional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 1, Guwahati[hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961[hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the IntimationOrder, dated 28/02/2025, passed under Section 143(1)of the Act for the Assessment Year 2024-2025. 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :

1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessment Year 2024-2025 2

1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the adjustments made by the CPC are beyond the purview of section 143(1) of the Act and such an action cannot be countenanced.

2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned intimation u/s.143(1) be quashed and set aside and the income as returned by the Appellant be accepted.

1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), erred in confirming the denial of deduction by the CPC of interest on co-operative banks amounting to Rs.4,31,357/- as claimed u/s 80P(2)(d) by the Appellant without appreciating that:

2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the disallowance of deduction as made by the Ld. AO and as affirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be deleted and it is Assessment Year 2024-2025 3

The relevant facts in brief are that the Assessee is the Co-operative Housing Society. In the return of income filed for the Assessment Year 2024-2025, the Assessee had claimed deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act which was denied while processing the return of income. Therefore, the Assessee challenged the Intimation Order, dated 28/02/2025, in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, vide impugned Order, dated 26/03/2025, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the aforesaid appeal by placing reliance upon Form 10-IF filed by the Assessee and concluding that there was infirmity in the Intimation Order under Section 143(1) of the Act as benefit of Section 80P of the Act was not available to the Assessee since the Assessee had opted for new Tax Regime under Section 115BAD of the Act. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has now preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced at Paragraph 2 above.

The Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee submitted that for the Assessment Year 2022-2023, Intimation Order, dated 16/03/2023 was issued without denying deduction claimed by the Assessee under Section 80P of the Act. For the Assessment Year 2023-2024, vide Intimation Order, dated 03/05/2024, deduction claimed by the Assessee under Section 80P was denied while processing the return of income. However, in appeal preferred by the Assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) had allowed the deduction claimed by the Assessee under Section 80P of the Act vide order, dated 17/03/2025. It was submitted that the Assessee had no intention of opting for new Tax Regime under Section 115BAD of the Act and the Form 10-IF was filed by the chartered accountant inadvertently. It was submitted that in the return of income the Assessee had taken consistent stand and had opted not to take benefit of new tax regime under Section 115BAD of the Act. Assessment Year 2024-2025 4

Per contra, Learned Departmental Representative placed reliance upon the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the Assessee had filed Form 10-IF on 10/07/2022 for the Assessment Year 2022-2023 and therefore, the Assessee could not opt out of the new tax regime.

We have heard both the sides and have perused the material on record. We find that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal preferred by the Assessee and confirmed denial of deduction under Section 80P of the Actsolely for the reason that the Assessee had opted for the new tax regime under Section 115BAD of the Act by filing Form 10-IF for the Assessment Year 2022-2023 on 10/07/2022. We note that the while Intimation Order, dated 16/03/2023, the deduction claimed by the Assessee under Section 80P of the Act was not denied by the Central Processing Centre. On perusal of appellate order passed for the Assessment Year 2023-2024, we find that the issue of opting for new tax regime under Section 115BAD of the Act had not reason for consideration. On perusal of return of income filed by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2022-2023 and 2024- 2025, we find that the Assessee had stated in the return of income that the Assessee had not opted for new tax regime under Section 115BAD of the Act. In view of the aforesaid, we find merit in the contention advanced on behalf of the Assessee that Form 10-IF was filed by the chartered accountant on account of inadvertent mistake. Accordingly, we hold that for the Assessment Year 2024-2025, the Assessee would not fall under the new tax regime under Section 115BAD of the Act, and therefore, we set aside the impugned order dated 26/03/2025, passed by the Ld. CIT(A) with the directions to adjudicate the appeal preferred by the Assessee on merits. In terms of aforesaid, Ground No.3.1 is allowed for statistical purposes while all the other Grounds raised by the Assessee are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous. Assessment Year 2024-2025 5

In result the appeal preferred by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

अपीलाथŎ/ The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/ The Respondent. 3. आयकरआयुƅ/ The CIT 4. Ůधान आयकर आयुƅ / Pr.CIT 5. िवभागीयŮितिनिध ,आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण ,मुंबई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाडŊफाईल