AARTI SACHDEV,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-44(6), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1763/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 August 2026AY 2024-254 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the return of income should be condoned, following coordinate bench decisions. The assessee's claim for taxation under Section 115BAC was allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's return was processed with a higher income. Rectification applications were rejected. The appellate authority denied the benefit of Section 115BAC because Form 10IE was filed on time, but the return of income was filed belatedly.

What were the issues?

Whether a belated filing of the return of income, when Form 10IE was filed within the due date, disentitles the assessee from the benefit of Section 115BAC.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 115BAC,Section 139(1),Section 143(1),Section 154,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Appellant: Shri Puneet Sachdev, CA
For Respondent: Shri Balkrishan Gopal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 08.07.2026

ITA No.1763/DEL/2026 AARTI SACHDEV IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1763/DEL/2026 Assessment Year: 2024-25 AARTI SACHDEV, Vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, Flat-112, First Floor, Prateek Apartment, . Income Tax Office, DDA LIG Flat, Block A-2, Paschim Vihar, Ward 44(6), Civic Centre, New Delhi, Delhi 110063. New Delhi, Delhi 110002. Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri Puneet Sachdev, CA Revenue by Shri Balkrishan Gopal, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 08.07.2026 Pronouncement on 24.08.2026 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. This appeal arises from order dated 18.02.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by Ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals)-2, Pune.

1.1 In this case, the assessee’s return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act, determining a total income of Rs.8,59,770/- instead of Rs.4,96,400/- as per the return of income. The aggrieved assessee filed an application u/s 154 of the Act, which was rejected by the Ld. AO-CPC, vide order dated 25.07.2025. It is seen that the assessee filed a second rectification application which was also rejected vide order dated 22.08.2025.

ITA No.1763/DEL/2026 AARTI SACHDEV 1.2 The aggrieved assessee approached the Ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) where also he could not succeed on the basis of finding that Form 10IE was filed on 31.07.2024 and the return of income for the said assessment year was filed belatedly on 13.01.2025. It was held that the due date for filing returned of income u/s 139(1) of the Act was 31.07.2024. It was further held that while Form 10IE was filed within the prescribed due date, but the return was filed belatedly and on this basis, the Ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) held that the benefit of Section 115BAC would not available to the assessee.

1.3 Further aggrieved, the assessee has approached the ITAT with two grounds challenging this action of the authorities below.

2.

We have considered the submissions of Ld. DR and have gone through the records before us. We are aware that there are a number of coordinate bench orders, whereby such delays have been held to be directory and not mandatory. It is seen that through such orders the coordinate benches have been condoning the delay in filing Form 10-IE and on the same principle, even delayed filing of return of income and have been granting relief to the assessee’s concerned. As an example, we may rely on the case of Arun Kumar Sharma reported in 176 taxmann.com 927 (Del. – Trib.) [2025]. The following is the operative portion of this order: -

ITA No.1763/DEL/2026 AARTI SACHDEV “2. A perusal of both the learned lower authorities’ respective findings indicates that they have held the assessee’s claim shifted to the new tax regime under section 115BAC of the Act for the sole reason that he had not submitted the corresponding prescribed Form 10-IE within the due date up to 31st July, 2023 since filed later on 07.08.2023. 3. It is in this factual backdrop that the Tribunal’s recent decision in Harbans Singh vs. AO, CPC [2024] 165 taxmann.com 146/208 ITD 151 (Amritsar – Trib.) has already concluded that the delay in filing of above Form 10-IE is only directory provision than a mandatory one which could even be filed before the assessing authority later on during assessment. I adopt the above detailed reasoning mutandis to accept the assessee’s instant sole substantive grievance in principle and leave it open for the learned Assessing Officer to frame his consequential computation after verifying all the relevant facts. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed.” We can do no better than to follow this order and hold, on the basis of broad principle, that the delay in filing return of income or even Form 10-IE (which was actually filed in time in this case) deserves to be condoned and the claim of the assessee for being taxed u/s 115BAC of the Act deserves to be allowed.

3.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 24.08.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (ANUBHAV SHARMA) (SANJAY AWASTHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 24.08.2026 *Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S.

ITA No.1763/DEL/2026 AARTI SACHDEV

More judgments on Section 115BAC

All 144 judgments and leading authorities on Section 115BAC →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →