PANDIA PREMLATA,DINHATA, COOCH BEHAR vs. I.T.O., WARD - 2(1),, COOCHBEHAR

ITA 1221/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 September 2026AY 2021-20224 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 95 days in filing the appeal, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, emphasizing a liberal approach to condoning delays with sufficient cause for substantial justice. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal held that the intimation under Section 143(1) was passed on March 22, 2022, without considering Form No. 10IE, which was available on the department's portal, albeit filed belatedly on February 26, 2022. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's grounds of appeal, stating that the filing of Form No. 10IE is directory and not mandatory. Consequently, the assessee cannot be denied the benefits of the new tax regime due to technical lapses. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to grant the benefit of concessional tax in accordance with law.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Pandia Premlata, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated December 11, 2024. The appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2021-22. There was a delay of 95 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT. The assessee attributed this delay to her advanced age, rural background, limited digital access, and reliance on her previous consultant, stating she became aware of the CIT(A)'s order only in April 2025. The assessee's original return declared a total income of Rs. 14,23,650/-. The intimation under Section 143(1) processed this income but determined a higher tax liability than claimed by the assessee.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 95 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT should be condoned, considering the reasons provided by the assessee? (Question of fact) 2. Whether the intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, passed by the CPC, Bengaluru, erred in not considering Form No. 10IE, which was filed electronically? - Assessee's contention: Form No. 10IE was filed electronically well within the date of issuing the intimation. The filing of Form No. 10IE is directory and not mandatory, and belated filing should not be a ground for addition. The assessee relies on the principle that technical lapses should not deny benefits of the new tax regime. - Revenue's contention: Form No. 10IE was filed on February 26, 2022, after the due date for filing the return (December 31, 2021). By the time Form No. 10IE was filed, proceedings under Section 143(1) had already been initiated. The revenue relies on the orders of the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 253,Section 143(1),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH,

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

For Appellant: Ms. Vijeta Untwalia, CA
For Respondent: Shri Soumitra Ghosh, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Hearing: 21.09.2026Pronounced: 25.09.2026

PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER:

The present Appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short) dated 11.12.2024, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. There is a delay of 95 days in filing the captioned Appeal. The Assessee filed an application along with affidavit for condonation of delay narrating the reasons which are reproduced as under: -

“3. That the appellant order dated December 11, 2024 was served upon me via email; however, I became aware of the said order only in April 2025 by which time the limitation period prescribed under Section

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →