THE VIJAY N DHARAMSHI HUF ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 20(3)(1), MUMBAI

सुिवधई की िधरीख / Date of Hearing 03.04.2025 घोर्णध की िधरीख/Date of Pronouncement 21.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :- This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 15/02/2023 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2022-23. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1. On the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, learned Addl/JCIT Appeal erred in upholding the action of the deputy director of Income Tax, CPC Bengaluru in not allowing deduction under chapter VIA though tax has been charged under old regime in that concessional rate under new regime was denied. 2. The Appellant craves, leave to add, alter or modify Ground of Appeal before or at the time of hearing of appeal.”

3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed is original return on 27/06/2022 declaring income of Rs. 1,20,51,280/- under the old tax regime. Subsequently, he filed a revised return on 03/08/2022 declaring a total income of Rs. 1,22,11,280/- under the new tax regime. Form No. 10IE was also filed on 03/08/2022 along with the revised return of income. Vide intimation dated 15/02/2023, the income was assessed at Rs.1,22,11,280/- (as per revised return), but no deduction u/c VI A of Rs.1,60,000/- was given and tax rates were applied as per the old tax regime. Aggrieved with the intimation received from CPC, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Vide order dated 31/12/2024 Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal with the following observations: “7.1 The impugned order alongwith the submission of the appellant has been perused. It is found that the appellant has filed original return of income within due date wherein the appellant claimed deduction under chapter VI-A amounting to Rs.1,60,000/-. Further, a revised return was filed by the appellant. In the revised return the appellant did not claim any deduction under chapter VI-A of the Act. In the return of income, the appellant opted for new tax regime and filed Form 10IE on 03/08/2022. As the original return was filed on time, the revised return was accepted as per the provision of section 139(5) of the Act and taken up for processing u/s.143(1) of the Act. In the revised return the appellant did not claim any deduction under chapter VI-A and therefore, the appellant cannot be allowed the same as it had not claimed in the revised return. Further, with respect to the denial of the appellant claim of new tax regime, the AO has correctly not allowed the option of the new tax regime as the appellant failed to file Form 101E before the due date of filing of return of income. In view of the above, I did not find any infirmity nfirmity in the impugned order u/s. 143(1) and hence, the ground of appeal is dismissed”.

Aggrieved with the above order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal.

4. Harbans Singh Vs. Income Tax Officer (ITO) in (Amritsar bench).”

Specifically, in the case of Akshay Devendra Birari Vs. DCIT, the coordinate bench under similar circumstances as held as under:

7. The Ground No. 1 raised by the appellant is related to disallowance of deduction under chapter VI-A amounting to Rs.1,60,000/-. The appellant submitted that in the order u/s.143(1), the appellant request for opting at new tax regime was not accepted and tax liability on total income was calculated as per the old tax regime. As the appellant contention is that if the appellant claim of opting of new tax regime while filing revised return was not accepted, then, it should be allowed for deduction under chapter VI-A amounting to Rs.1,60,000/- while filing original return of income.