ABDUS SUKUR AHMED,DHUBRI vs. ITO, WARD - DHUBRI, DHUBRI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 358/GTY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 March 2026AY 2020-213 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided the issues as follows. Regarding the first issue, the Tribunal held that the relief claimed by the assessee under Section 89(1) of the Act cannot be denied for a technical breach of not filing Form 10E within the prescribed time, especially when the calculation of the relief was available in the assessment order and the appellate order. The Tribunal found that the assessee is entitled to the relief. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) on this issue was set aside, and the AO was directed to allow the relief as claimed. This issue was allowed. For the second issue concerning the discrepancy of suppressed salary amounting to ₹1,12,080/-, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the AO. The AO was directed to decide the issue afresh after considering the evidence filed by the assessee and Form 26AS, and after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal did not explicitly leave any issue undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Abdus Sukur Ahmed, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (CIT(A)) dated 19.09.2025 for the Assessment Year 2020-21. The appeal pertains to two issues. Firstly, the denial of relief claimed under Section 89(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Assessing Officer (AO) and upheld by the CIT(A) on the grounds that Form 10E was not filed before the Income Tax Return (ITR) filing due date or e-filed within the stipulated period. Secondly, the confirmation of an addition of ₹1,12,080/- by the AO and CIT(A) due to a discrepancy between Form 26AS and the salary disclosed by the assessee. The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) had decided the appeal ex-parte due to non-compliance by the assessee.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the relief claimed by the assessee under Section 89(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, can be denied on the technical ground of non-filing of Form 10E within the prescribed time, despite the calculation of relief being available in the assessment and appellate orders? - Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the relief under Section 89(1) should not be denied for a technical breach of filing Form 10E. (Implied from the Tribunal's reasoning). - Revenue's contention: The revenue, through the AO and upheld by the CIT(A), denied the relief 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. 2. Whether the addition of ₹1,12,080/- on account of discrepancy between Form 26AS and the salary disclosure by the assessee is sustainable? - Assessee's contention: Not recorded in the judgment. - Revenue's contention: The revenue confirmed the addition of ₹1,12,080/- due to the discrepancy between Form 26AS and the salary disclosure.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 89(1)

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

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Bhati, AR, Shri Dipak Singh, DR
For Respondent: Shri S.P. Bhati, AR, Shri Dipak Singh, DR
Pronounced: 10.03.2026

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.

2.

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

3.

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.

4.

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.

5.

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.

More judgments on Section 89(1)

All 35 judgments and leading authorities on Section 89(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →