AMI DUSHYANT ANSODARIA,AHMEDABAD vs. CPC, BENGLURU PRESENT JURIS.-ITO WARD 3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 401/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 April 2026AY 2022-236 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the denial of the new tax regime benefit was hyper-technical. Filing Form 10-IE before the processing of the return under section 143(1) constitutes substantial compliance, and the benefit cannot be denied due to a procedural lapse.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed their return of income opting for the new tax regime by filing Form 10-IE. However, the CPC processed the return under the old regime, ignoring the option. The assessee's rectification application was rejected, and the appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed.

What were the issues?

Whether the benefit of the new tax regime can be denied if Form 10-IE is filed before the processing of the return but after the due date for filing the return under section 139(1).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 115BAC,Section 139(1),Section 139(4),Section 143(1),Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah & Shri Gulab Thakor, ARs
For Respondent: Shri Girish Parihar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 25.03.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.401/Ahd/2026 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) Ami Dushyant Ansodaria, Vs. CPC, Bengaluru BSA-3, Jainshasannagar-2, Nr. (Now Present Income Tax Umiya Vijay Bus Stop, Satellite, Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad-380015 Ahmedabad) [PAN No.BQMPG8024R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Biren Shah & Shri Gulab Thakor, ARs Respondent by: Shri Girish Parihar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 25.03.2026 23.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), ADDL/JCIT(A)-2, Gurugram vide order dated 17.11.2025 passed for A.Y. 2022-23.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in non-condoning delay and thereby erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee without considering the merits of the case. 2. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case, Ld. Officer, CPC, has erred in processing in the return of income for AY 2022-23 under old regime though the assessee filed form 10IE to opt for new regime on 19/10/2022. 3. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case, Ld. AO, CPC has erred in not granting benefit of deductions allowable under old regime. Therefore, the case shall be transferred to Ld. Jurisdiction AO and JAO shall allow the eligible deductions and benefits under old regime based on the documents produced by assessee.

ITA No. 401/Ahd/2026 Ami Dushyant Ansodaria vs. ITO Asst.Year –2022-23 - 2– 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, withdraw and/or alter any of the ground or grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who filed his return of income for Assessment Year 2022-23 on 20.10.2022 declaring total income of Rs.11,36,960/- and had opted to be taxed under the new regime by filing Form No. 10-IE dated 19.10.2022. The return so filed was processed by CPC, Bengaluru under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") on 23.02.2023; however, while processing the return, the CPC ignored the option exercised by the assessee under section 115BAC and computed the tax liability under the old regime, resulting in additional tax demand. Aggrieved by such incorrect processing, the assessee filed an application under section 154 of the Act seeking rectification of the apparent mistake, specifically contending that Form No. 10-IE was duly filed prior to processing of return and hence the benefit of the new tax regime ought to have been granted. However, the CPC rejected the rectification application vide order dated 06.09.2024 without granting any relief and upheld the computation under the old regime.

4.

Aggrieved by the rectification order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals). The Ld. CIT(Appeals), at the outset, condoned the delay in filing the appeal by invoking section 249(3) of the Act, being satisfied that the assessee had demonstrated sufficient cause for delay, and thereafter proceeded to adjudicate the appeal on merits.

5.

While adjudicating Ground No.1, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) examined the contention of the assessee that despite filing Form No. 10-IE on 19.10.2022 and exercising the option for the new tax regime, the CPC processed the return under the old regime. The assessee argued that filing

ITA No. 401/Ahd/2026 Ami Dushyant Ansodaria vs. ITO Asst.Year –2022-23 - 3– of Form No. 10-IE is procedural in nature and once the form was available on record prior to issuance of intimation under section 143(1) of the Act, the benefit could not be denied. The assessee had also relied upon judicial precedents viz. Akshay Devendra Birari v. DCIT (2024) 164 taxmann.com 58 (Pune - Trib.) and Arun Gopilal Samnani v. ITO and Bhargav Kumar Parsottambhai Patel (HUF) v. ITO (2025) 174 taxmann.com 33 (Ahmedabad - Trib.), wherein it was held that filing of Form 10-IE is directory and not mandatory.

6.

However, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) rejected the contention of the assessee by adopting a strict interpretation of section 115BAC(5) of the Act. The CIT(Appeals) held that the option to be taxed under the new regime is valid only if such option is exercised on or before the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. The CIT(Appeals) observed that since the assessee had filed the return of income under section 139(4) of the Act i.e. beyond the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act, the option exercised for the new regime was invalid in law. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) further held that a belated return automatically disentitles the assessee from exercising the option under section 115BAC and, therefore, the CPC was justified in processing the return under the old regime. The judicial precedents relied upon by the assessee were not accepted by the CIT(Appeals) on the ground that the statutory provision explicitly requires compliance with the due date under section 139(1) of the Act, thereby treating such requirement as mandatory.

7.

With respect to Ground No.2, which was raised in the alternative, the assessee contended that even if the benefit of the new regime is not granted, the CPC erred in not allowing deductions available under the old regime and requested that the matter be restored to the jurisdictional

ITA No. 401/Ahd/2026 Ami Dushyant Ansodaria vs. ITO Asst.Year –2022-23 - 4– Assessing Officer for allowing eligible deductions under Chapter VI-A and other provisions. The Ld. CIT(Appeals), however, did not adjudicate this ground independently and summarily held that since the computation under the old regime by CPC was in accordance with law, there was no infirmity in the order passed under section 154 of the Act. The alternative plea for allowing deductions or remanding the matter for verification was thus rejected without any examination/observation.

8.

Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) held that there was no mistake apparent on record warranting rectification under section 154 of the Act and upheld the action of CPC in denying the benefit of the new tax regime as well as in computing the income under the old regime. The appeal of the assessee was thus dismissed.

9.

The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by CIT(Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the assessee.

10.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The undisputed facts are that the assessee had filed Form No. 10-IE on 19.10.2022 and the return of income on 20.10.2022, and both were available on record prior to the issuance of intimation under section 143(1) of the Act dated 23.02.2023. It is further evident from the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act placed at page 80 of the paper book that the assessee had exercised the option to be taxed under the new regime.

11.

In our considered view, the denial of benefit of the new tax regime merely on the ground that the return was filed under section 139(4) of the Act is hyper-technical and ignores the settled legal principle that procedural requirements cannot defeat substantive rights. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Association of Indian

ITA No. 401/Ahd/2026 Ami Dushyant Ansodaria vs. ITO Asst.Year –2022-23 - 5– Panelboard Manufacturer vs. DCIT (R/TAX APPEAL NO. 655 of 2022, judgment dated 21.03.2023) has categorically held that where a statutory form, though not filed along with the return, is available on record at the time of processing under section 143(1) of the Act, the benefit cannot be denied merely on account of such procedural lapse. The Hon’ble High Court further held that while the requirement may be mandatory, the timing and manner of filing is procedural and directory in nature, and substantial compliance is sufficient.

12.

The Pune Bench of the Tribunal in Akshay Devendra Birari v. DCIT (2024) 164 taxmann.com 58 and the Ahmedabad Bench in Arun Gopilal Samnani v. ITO and Arun Gopilal Samnani vs. Income-tax Officer [2025] 174 taxmann.com 33 (Ahmedabad - Trib.)[29-04-2025] have held that filing of Form No. 10-IE is directory and where the form is available on record at the time of processing, the benefit of the new tax regime cannot be denied. The Ahmedabad ITAT held that omission to file Form No. 10-IE within prescribed due date does not invalidate assessee's claim of option to pay taxes under new regime and mandate of filing Form No. 10-IE is only directory.

13.

Applying the aforesaid settled legal position to the facts of the present case, we find that Form No. 10-IE was admittedly filed prior to the issuance of intimation under section 143(1) of the Act and was very much available with CPC at the time of processing. Therefore, the requirement of law stood substantially complied with and denial of benefit of the new tax regime is not sustainable.

14.

In view of the above, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and direct the Assessing Officer/CPC to recompute the income of the

ITA No. 401/Ahd/2026 Ami Dushyant Ansodaria vs. ITO Asst.Year –2022-23 - 6–

assessee under the new tax regime as opted by the assessee after taking into consideration Form No. 10-IE filed and available on record.

15.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 23/04/2026

Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 23/04/2026 TANMAY, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant ��थ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 5. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation 17.04.2026 (Dictated over dragon software) 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 17.04.2026 3. Other Member………………… 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S 17.04.2026 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement 23.04.2026 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S 23.04.2026 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 23.04.2026 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk…………………………………... 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order…………………….. 10. Date of Dispatch of the Order……………………………………

More judgments on Section 115BAC

All 144 judgments and leading authorities on Section 115BAC →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →