DEEBA,ERODE vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), ERODE

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ए’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी एस.एस. िव�ने� रिव, �ाियक सद� एवं �ी बालकृ"न एस, लेखा सद� के सम% Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Shri Balakrishnan S, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3599/Chny/2025 िनधा&रण वष&/Assessment Year: 2022-23 Deeba, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 33, By-Pass Road, Ward -2(1), Kodumudi, Erode – 638 151. Erode. [PAN: AQYPD-8901-B] (अपीलाथ)/Appellant) (*+थ)/Respondent) अपीलाथ) की ओर से / Appellant by : Mr. Vijayakumar, CA *+थ) की ओर से/Respondent by : Mr. S. Chandramouli, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 02.04.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 23.06.2026 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 07.08.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/JCIT(A)-3, Ahmedabad, (herein after “ld.CIT(A)”) for the assessment year 2022-23.

:-2-: ITA No: 3599/Chny/2025

issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld.CIT(A) is

justified in confirming denial of new tax rate as per section 115BAC of

the Income-tax Act, 1961 (herein after “the Act”).

income for the year under consideration u/s. 139(4) of the Act on

10.11.2022, declaring a total income of Rs.48,79,850/- by opting to tax

u/s. 115BAC of the Act. The CPC, Bengaluru, denied option of tax u/s.

115BAC of the Act for not filing required Form under 10-IE of the Act.

for earlier AY i.e., 2021-22 filed on 12.03.2022 and there is no

necessity to file said Form 10-IE for subsequent year. The ld.AR

placed on record various orders from page no. 26 to 63 for the

proposition that no need of filing Form 10-IE for every assessment

year, when it was filed for immediate earlier assessment year and that is sufficient to claim tax u/s. 115BAC of the Act for subsequent years.

The ld.AR drew our attention to the order of the ITAT, Ahmedabad

Benches in the case of Arun Gopilal Samnani vs ITO reported in 174

:-3-: ITA No: 3599/Chny/2025

Taxmann.com 33 (Ahmedabad Tribunal) at page no. 35 of the paper

book. He submits that the Tribunal held “when it exercised its option of

paying taxes under the new regime for the first time, the denial of

exercise of this option in the impugned year for failure to file Form

10IE, held is not accordance with law”. He submits that the facts and

circumstances of the present case are similar and prayed to adopt the

same findings. He prayed to allow the grounds.

ld.CIT(A).

record. Admittedly, the assessee filed return of income for the year

under consideration belatedly u/s. 139(4) of the Act, with an option to

avail lower tax rate u/s. 115BAC of the Act. The facts remain admitted

that no fresh Form 10-IE of the Act was filed for the year under

consideration. The moot point before us is as to whether the option to lower tax rate u/s. 115BAC of the Act filed for immediately previous

year is sufficient to claim benefit of lower tax rate u/s. 115BAC of the

Act for the year under consideration. Admittedly, there is no dispute

:-4-: ITA No: 3599/Chny/2025

with reference to filing of Form 10-IE on 12.03.2022 for immediate

previous year 2020-21 (AY 2021-22) which is evident from Para no.2 of

the impugned order. To decide the issue before us, whether such

option availed for immediate previous year is sufficient to claim benefit

of lower tax rate for the year under consideration, we find Ahmedabad

ITAT Benches in the case of Arun Gopilal vs ITO (Supra), held that

there was no requirement for the assessee to file fresh Form 10-IE

again for subsequent years as per sub-section (5) of section 15BAC of

the Act. The relevant portion from para no. 12 to 13 is reproduced

herein below for better understanding:

“12. As is evident from the bare perusal of the above, individuals and HUF have been given option for paying taxes at the rates prescribed in section 115BAC of the Act w.e.f. 1st April, 2021 subject to the condition that their income is computed as prescribed under sub-section (2) ,which says that the income is to be computed without claiming any exemption or deductions, loss or depreciation as specified in the said sub-section. The first proviso to section 115BAC states that the option exercised by the assessee shall be invalid, if the assessee fails to satisfy the conditions mentioned in sub-section (2).That is the only prescription in law for treating the option to have been invalidly exercised. Sub-section (5) prescribes that for claiming the benefit of option, the assessee having income from business or profession needs to file prescribed form by the due date prescribed in the said section initially and such option exercised would thereafter be applicable for subsequent years. The prescribed form as per the Rule is form no.10-IE. The assessees in the present case have returned income from business and profession which is reflected in the intimation made u/s 143(1) of the Act. 12.1 As is evident from the literal reading of the section itself, the assessee’s option is treated as invalid only if it does not fulfil the conditions prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 115BAC of the Act, which is of computing its income without claiming any exemption, deduction, loss or depreciation specified in sub-section (2). The failure to file Form No.10-IE within the prescribed due date as per sub-section (5) does not invalidate the assessee’s claim of the option. The mandate of filing the Form No.10-

:-5-: ITA No: 3599/Chny/2025

IE is only directory. What invalidates the exercise of option has been clearly mentioned in the first proviso to section 115BAC of the Act. 12.2 Therefore, in the facts of the present case, in the preceding year when the assessee had filed Form No.10-IE while exercising its option of paying taxes as per the new regime, the option was not invalidated as per sub section (2) to section 115BAC of the Act. The option though was denied to the assessee for the reason that the Form No.10-IE was not filed within the prescribed time, clearly the assessee’s exercise of option in the preceding year was not invalid. That therefore, when the assessee again opted paying taxes under the new regime in the impugned year, there was no requirement for the assessee to file a fresh Form No.10-IE at all, as per sub section (5) to section 115BAC of the Act. It is only if the earlier option is treated as invalid that the assessee has to go about exercising the option afresh in the succeeding years. 12.3 In the light of the same, and in view of the fact that the assessee had filed Form No.10-IE in the preceding year, when it exercised its option of paying taxes under the new regime for the first time, the denial of exercise of this option in the impugned year for failure to file Form No.10-IE, we hold, is not accordance with law. 13. The order of the ld.CIT(A), upholding the intimation made on the assessee, computing its taxability as per the old regime, is therefore set aside, and the AO is directed to allow the assessee’s option of paying taxes as per the new regime under section 115BAC of the Act.”

Tribunal that no Form 10-IE was filed for the year under consideration

therein and the same was filed in the preceding year along with the

return of income, but the said Form having not being filed within the

prescribed time, no benefit of paying taxes in the new regime was

granted. Considering the same, Tribunal held that when the assessee

opted to pay taxes under new regime for the year under consideration,

therein, there was no requirement for the assessee to file a fresh Form

10-IE to subsequent year as per section 115BAC(5) of the Act.

:-6-: ITA No: 3599/Chny/2025

Therefore, it is clear when the option of lower tax rate opted in the immediate previous year, then there is no need to file fresh Form 10-IE for the subsequent year under consideration. Therefore, in the present case, the assessee opted for lower tax rate under new regime in the immediate previous year 2020-21 (AY 2021-22) and therefore, the said option availed for 2021-22 is sufficient for claiming lower tax rate u/s. 115BAC of the Act for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2022-23. Thus, order of the ld.CIT(A) is not justified and is set aside. Thus, ground raised by the assessee are allowed.

Sd/- Sd/- (BALAKRISHNAN. S) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated: 23.06.2026 JPV आदेश की *ितिलिप अ2ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ)/Appellant, 2.*+थ)/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयु3/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय *ितिनिध/DR & 5. गाड& फाईल/GF

PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA VANI JETTY VANI JETTY Date: 2026.06.29 11:33:20 +05'30'