Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee opted for the concessional tax regime under section 115BAC and filed the original return within the due date. However, the CPC denied the benefit citing that Form 10-IE was filed after the due date, which was also confirmed by the CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal held that Form 10-IE is directory and not mandatory, and since it was available on record at the time of processing, the benefit of the concessional tax regime should not have been denied.
Key Issues
Whether the benefit of concessional tax regime under Section 115BAC can be denied if Form 10-IE is filed after the due date, despite it being available during processing.
Sections Cited
143(1), 115BAC, 139(9)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI & SHRI JAGADISH
आदेश / O R D E R
PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2023-24 arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl./JCIT(A)-5, Mumbai [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 07.07.2025 vide intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) issued by Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred “CPC”) dated 14.12.2023.
ITA No.2466/Chny/2023 Vaitianadin :- 2 -:
The CPC, in the intimation issued u/s. 143(1) of the Act, did not allow the taxation option opted by the assessee u/s. 115BAC of the Act on the ground that Form 10-IE had not been filed within the prescribed time. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. Addl. CIT(A). However, the Ld. Addl. CIT(A) also confirmed the order of the CPC.
The Ld. Authorized Representative (A.R.) submitted that the assessee had opted for the new taxation regime u/s. 115BAC of the Act in the original return of income filed on 20.07.2023, the due date for which was 31.07.2023. The CPC treated the return as defective u/s. 139(9) of the Act, and in response, the assessee filed a revised return on 03.08.2023 along with the prescribed Form 10-IE. However, while processing the return u/s. 143(1) on 14.12.2023, the CPC denied the benefit of the concessional tax rate on the ground that Form 10-IE was filed after the due date.
1. 3.1 The Ld. A.R. further submitted that Form 10-IE was furnished in response to the notice issued u/s. 139(9) of the Act and was very much available at the time of processing the return. Therefore, CPC ought to have allowed the concessional rate of tax as opted in the Vaitianadin :- 3 -: original return. The Ld. A.R. placed reliance on the decisions of the Tribunal in Vinayaka Murthy vs. ITO (ITA No. 232/Bang/2025, dated 26.08.2025 – Bangalore Bench), Akshay Devendra Birar vs. DCIT (ITA No. 782/Pun/2024, dated 05.06.2024 – Pune Bench), Harbans Singh v. A.O., CPC [2024] 165 taxmann.com 146 (Amritsar Bench), and Arun Kumar Sharma v. ITO [2025] 176 taxmann.com 927 (Delhi Bench), wherein it has been held that Form 10-IE is directory and not mandatory, and when the form is available on record at the time of processing, CPC cannot deny the benefit of the concessional tax regime.
On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (D.R.) relied upon the orders of the lower authorities.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessee, in the valid return of income filed within the prescribed due date, had opted for the concessional tax regime u/s. 115BAC of the Act. The CPC denied the benefit solely on the ground that Form 10-IE was filed on 03.08.2023, i.e., after the due date of 31.07.2023. The issue, however, is squarely covered by the decisions of the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal cited supra.
ITA No.2466/Chny/2023 Vaitianadin :- 4 -:
Respectfully following the said decisions, we direct the A.O. to allow the benefit of the concessional tax regime u/s. 115BAC of the Act.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced on 04th day of December, 2025 at Chennai.