AVINASH SINGH,MORADABAD vs. ITO-2(1), MORADABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1182/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 April 2026AY 2023-242 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 filing of Form 10-IE is a directory, not a mandatory, requirement. Therefore, the assessee's claim for assessment under Section 115BAC should be allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed to be assessed under the new tax scheme (Section 115BAC) but did not file the prescribed Form 10-IE by the due date. Both lower authorities rejected this claim based on the non-compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether the filing of Form 10-IE is a mandatory condition for opting for the new tax scheme under Section 115BAC, or if it is a directory requirement.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 115BAC,Section 139(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 06.04.2026Pronounced: 06.04.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1182/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2023-24 Sh. Avinash Singh Vs. Income Tax Officer-2(1) Opposite HI Land Exports, Moradabad Kothiwal Nagar Station New Moradabad Road, Moradabad- 244001, Uttar Pradesh Uttar Pradesh PAN: CWWPS9672N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Sanjeev Kachhal, CA Department by Sh. Ravi Kant Chaudhary, Sr. DR

Date of hearing 06.04.2026 Date of pronouncement 06.04.2026 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2023-24, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- Addl/ JCIT(A)- 9 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Delhi’s case no. Addl./ JCIT(A)-9 Delhi/10054/2022-23 dated 10.12.2025, involving proceedings u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case filed perused. 2. It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing, that both the learned lower authorities have refused the assessee’s claim for being assessed under the newly introduced scheme i.e.,

ITA No.1182/Del/2026 section 115BAC of the Act for the sole reason that he had not filed/uploaded the prescribed Form 10-IE on or before the due date of filing his return u/s 139(1) of the Act.

3.

That being the case, the Revenue could hardly dispute the various recent decisions; and more particularly, Harbans Singh vs. Assessing Officer (2024) 208 ITD 151 (ASR), has already settled the issue that the foregoing compliance of filing or uploading Form 10-IE is directory than a mandatory provision, against the department. There is further no denial to the fact that the assessee had indeed filed his Form 10-IE beyond the above “due” as well. He thus succeeds in his instant sole grievance in very terms therefore. The learned assessing authority is directed to finalize his consequential assessment in the assessee’s case under the newly introduced scheme after verification of all the relevant facts.

5.

This assesseee’s is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 6th April, 2026 Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 20th April, 2026. Pooja Mittal/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

2 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 115BAC

All 144 judgments and leading authorities on Section 115BAC →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →