Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed an order upholding the denial of relief under section 89(1) due to non-filing of Form 10E and a confirmed addition of ₹1,12,080/- for discrepancy between Form 26AS and salary disclosure. The lower appellate authority decided the appeal ex-parte due to non-compliance.
Held
The tribunal held that relief under section 89(1) should not be denied for a technical breach like non-filing of Form 10E within the stipulated time. The addition for salary discrepancy was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration with evidence and an opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Denial of relief under section 89(1) on technical grounds and confirmation of addition due to discrepancy between Form 26AS and salary disclosure.
Sections Cited
89(1), 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, `GAUHATI BENCH, GUWAHATI
Before: SHRIDUVVURU RL REDDY, VP & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 19.09.2025 for the AY 2020-21.
The first issue raised by the assessee is against the order of ld. CIT (A) upholding the order of ld. AO wherein the relief claimed u/s 89(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was denied by the ld. AO on the ground that the assessee has not filed the form 10E before filing the ITR in the impugned assessment year nor did file the form 10E
The second issue raised by the assessee is against the confirmation of addition of ₹1,12,080/-, which was on account of discrepancy between the form 26AS and the salary disclosure by the assessee.
At the outset, we observe that there is no compliance before the ld. CIT (A) and therefore the CIT (A) decided the appeal ex-parte by upholding the order of the ld. AO. We also note that the ld. AO has disallowed the relief claimed by the assessee u/s 89(1) of the Act on the technical ground that form 10E was not filed before the due date of filing the return or e-filed within the stipulated date. In our opinion, the assessee is entitled to claim the relief u/s 89(1) of the Act, the calculation qua which has been extracted by the ld. AO in the assessment order by the ld. AO as well as in the appellate order by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). In our opinion, the relief claimed by the assessee u/s 89(1) of the Act cannot be denied for the technical breach. Consequently, we set aside the order of ld. CIT (A) on this issue and direct the ld. AO to allow the relief as claimed by the assessee u/s 89(1) of the Act. The issue number 1 is allowed.
So far as the second issue of discrepancy of suppressed salary is concerned, we restore the same to the file of the ld. AO with a direction to decide the same after taking into account the evidences filed by the assessee as well as form 26AS, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing the assessee.
Order pronounced on 13.03.2026.