INDIAN SEMLESS METAL TUBE PAGARDAR NOKRANCHI SAH PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-14(5), PUNE, PUNE

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a credit co-operative society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act providing in credit facilities to its society members. The assessee filed its return of income on 09.09.2024 declaring total taxable income at Nil after claiming deduction u/s 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) at Rs.1,43,45,895/-. The assessee had filed Form 10-IF along with the return. The CPC processed the return u/s 143(1) of the Act on 19.12.2025 and determined the 2 total income of the assessee at Rs.1,43,45,900/- by disallowing the deduction claimed u/s 80P of the Act amounting to Rs.1,43,45,900/-. The rectification application filed by the assessee was dismissed by the CPC.

The assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) who dismissed the appeal on the ground that the assessee had filed Form 10-IF on 09.09.2024 to exercise the option for new tax regime for assessment year 2024-25. Further the assessee had filed return of income on 09.09.2024 claiming deduction u/s 80P for Rs.1,43,45,895/- and against the column d(ii) in Part A-General of ITR, the assessee clicked “No” in the return of income filed. He rejected the contention of the assessee that Form 10-IF was filed mistakenly and without any conscious intention to opt for the concessional tax regime u/s 115BAD of the Act.

Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following abridged grounds:

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had inadvertently filed Form No.10-IF. However, the assessee has not fulfilled all the conditions laid down in section 115BAD. Further, the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) has also given a finding that the assessee has mentioned “No” against the column d(ii) in Part A-General of ITR which states “Have you opted for new tax regime u/s 115BAD?”. Therefore, merely because the assessee has inadvertently filed Form No.10-IF, the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) should not have upheld the action of the CPC.

Referring to the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Akshay Nitin Malu vs. ITO vide ITA No.1651/PUN/2024 order dated 03.01.2025 for assessment year 2022-23, he submitted that under identical circumstances the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee where the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) had upheld the order of the CPC determining the total income of the assessee as per new regime of taxation on the ground that the assessee had exercised the option for filing the requisite Form No.10-IE. He accordingly submitted that this being a covered matter in favour of the assessee, the order of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) be set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee be allowed.

The Ld. DR on the other hand while supporting the order of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) submitted that the provisions of section 115BAD does not provide

We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find the assessee in the instant case filed its return of income on 09.09.2024 claiming deduction u/s 80P of the Act for Rs.1,43,45,895/-. It is also an admitted fact that on the very same day the assessee had filed Form No.10-IF which is an application for co-operative society exercising the option under sub- section (5) of section 115BAD to exercise option for new tax regime for assessment year 2024-25. We find the CPC while processing the return of income disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 80P and taxed the gross total income under the new tax regime. We find the assessee filed a rectification application before the CPC which was rejected by the CPC and on appeal the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that Form 10-IF was inadvertently filed. However, the assessee in the return of income has claimed deduction u/s 80P as per the old regime. Further, the assessee in the return of income against the column d(ii) in Part A-General of ITR has also categorically mentioned “No” against the clause that “Have you opted for new tax regime u/s 115BAD?”. It is also his submission that since the assessee has not fulfilled all the conditions as mentioned in section 115BAD, therefore, the 5 Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) was not justified in upholding the action of the CPC in treating the return filed under the new regime of taxation.

We find some force in the above arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. We find a somewhat similar issue had come up before the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Akshay Nitin Malu vs. ITO (supra) where the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) who has upheld the action of the CPC in processing the return of income determining the total income at Rs.64,41,940/- under the new regime of taxation. The relevant observations of the Tribunal from para 8 onwards read as under:

Since the facts of the instant case are identical to the facts of the case decided by the Tribunal in the case of Akshay Nitin Malu vs. ITO (supra), therefore, we hold that the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) was not justified in upholding the action of the CPC in processing the return of income determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,43,45,895/- under the new regime of taxation. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) and allow the grounds raised by the assessee.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune

DR, ITAT, ‘A’ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, ////