MANMOHAN SINGH,HALDWANI vs. ITO-1(2) DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘DB’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 92/DDN/2026 (Assessment Year : 2024-25) Manmohan Singh Vs. ITO-1(2) Presiding Officer, Dehradun Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Haldwani-263 139 Uttarakhand PAN No. CLUPS 9665 J (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Shri Bishan Singh Rawat, Sr. Adv. Revenue by Ms. Poonam Sharma, CIT-D.R. Date of hearing: 29.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 03.08.2026 ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), ADDL/JCIT(A)-1, Mumbai [‘CIT(A)’ in short] dated 19.12.2025 arising from the assessment order under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) on 08.05.2025 for Assessment Year 2024-25 by LKN-C- (90)(91) [hereinafter referred as ‘the AO’]. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, received salary and arrear form the office of District Judge Dehradun

ITA No. 92/DDN/2026 [A.Y 2024-25] Manmohan Singh vs. ITO and Nainital. The assessee filed original return for A.Y. 2024-25 on 26.07.2024 declaring total income of Rs. 42,59,820/- under “New Tax Regime” in pursuance of Section 115BAC, which was processed u/s 143(1) dated 30.07.2024. The assessee filed a revised return u/s 139(5) of the Income Tax Act on 26.09.2024, opting for “Old Tax Regime’, declaring income of Rs 31,15,190 after claiming the exemption of Rs. 20,62,151 on arrears of past years including current year, u/s 10 and Rs. 5,71,360/- as deduction under chapter IVA [80C, 80CCD(2), 80CCD(1B) and 80D]. The revised return was processed by CPC on 08.05.2025, under “new regime” disallowing the exemption of arrears of Rs. 20,62,151/- u/s 10, and also disallowed deduction of Rs. 2,12,000/- under Chapter IVA stating the reason as “taxpayer is not allowed to change tax regime in revised/corrected return, hence revised/corrected return will be processed as per the tax regime opted in original return filed on 16.07.2024”. The CPC while processing the revised return filed under “new Tax Regime”, allowed only 80CCD(2) deduction of Rs. 3,59,360/-. 3. Upon appeal, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that in revised return, tax regime cannot be changed. Aggrieved, assessee is before us.

Page 2 of 6

ITA No. 92/DDN/2026 [A.Y 2024-25] Manmohan Singh vs. ITO 4. The ld AR stated the original return of income is in ‘New Tax Regime’ and the assessee has filed a revised return of income in ‘Old Tax Regime’. The ld AR stated that Form 10-IEA was filed with delay and prayed for condonation of delay and processing the revised return under “old regime”. The ld AR submitted that the filing of Form 10-IEA for change of regime is not mandatory for salaried taxpayers. The AR stated that the tax payer has right to plan his tax liabilities legitimately at the minimum and assessee should not be forced to pay tax higher than lawfully due. It is also a well established law that legitimate claim of the tax payers cannot be denied on procedural omissions. The ld AR relied on the case of Sushma Pathak v. ITO, Delhi [ITA No. 2590/Del/2024, order dated 24.09.2024], where the ITAT that a revised return filed under section 139(5) is valid and is required to be given effect to by the Assessing Officer as per law. 5. Per contra, learned DR relied on the order of the AO/CIT(A). 6. We have heard the rival submission and perused the materials on record. The sole and substantial issue for adjudication is whether a revised return filed within time under Section 139(5), shifting from New Regime to Old Regime and claiming exemption/deductions, is valid in law or not. It is an admitted fact that the assessee has filed return u/s 139(5) within the time prescribed. Accordingly, as per the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. Page 3 of 6

ITA No. 92/DDN/2026 [A.Y 2024-25] Manmohan Singh vs. ITO v. Commissioner of Income Tax [1973] 90 ITR 236 (All.), the revised return filed under Section 139(5) supersedes the original return. Once a valid revised return is filed, the original return is considered withdrawn and cannot be used for assessment purposes. 7. Further, it is also an unrebutted fact that the assessee does not have any income from business or profession, hence the proviso to sub- section 6 of section 115BAC, restricting the number of choices, is not applicable. We also find that the assessee has filed the Form 10-IEA, albeit with a delay. We find the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing of the Form 10-IEA in time and accordingly the delay is condoned. Filing of Form 10-IEA is in the nature of procedural requirement, hence the fact of filing the same fulfils the requirement of processing the return under “Old Regime”, making the assessee eligible for the exemption and deductions claimed in the revised return. Following the coordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of Sushma Pathak v. ITO, Delhi [ITA No. 2590/Del/ 2024, order dated 24.09.2024], the order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the AO is directed to process revised return filed on 26.09.2024 under "Old Tax Regime”. The ground is allowed. 8. In the result, the appeal in ITA 92/DDN/2026 is allowed.

Page 4 of 6

ITA No. 92/DDN/2026 [A.Y 2024-25] Manmohan Singh vs. ITO Order pronounced in the open court on 03.08.2026 Sd/- Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) (NAVEEN CHANDRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Date:- 03.08.2026 Priti Yadav, Sr. Ps* Copy forwarded to: 1. Assessee 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI

Page 5 of 6