MORAYA RESIDENCY B WING,PUNE, MAHARASHTRA vs. THE ITO WARD 6(1), PUNE, PUNE, MAHARASHTRA

The appellant craves leave to add, alter, DLEETE OR substitute all OR any of the above grounds of appeal.”

We have heard both the parties and perused the records.

1 In this case the Assessee had filed return of Income on 30/10/2024 for AY 2024-25 and the due date for filling Return u/s.139(1) was 31/10/2024. Thus the Return of Income was filed u/s.139(1) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessee claimed deduction u/s.80P(d) of the Act.

The Return was processed u/s.143(1) on 28/02/2025. The Centralized Processing centre u/s.143(1) of the Act denied the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s.80P of the Act. Aggrieved by the ITA No.1831/PUN/2025 [A]

4 Hence, the tax computed by the AO/CPC is found to be correct and the grounds of appeal are hereby dismissed.

Conclusion:

1 Thus, the Commissioner of Income Tax (appeal) has upheld the Order u/s 143(1) stating that the Assessee had opted for New Tax Regime u/s 115BAD of the Income Tax Act.

We have perused the paper book filed by the Assessee. It is noted that Assessee had “not opted” for New Tax Regime u/s.115BAD of the Act for A.Y.2023-24. The relevant part of the ITA No.1831/PUN/2025 [A]

The Assessee had not opted for New Tax Regime for A.Y.2024-25 as is evident from the Return of Income. The relevant part of the Return is scanned and reproduced here under :

The Assessee had claimed deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act of Rs.80,724/- in the Return of Income.

1 Thus, when assessee has not opted for 115BAD, the Ld.CIT(A) has earned in upholding the order u/s.143(1) on the basis of the incorrect fact.

Ld.AR has relied on the decision of ITAT Pune Bench in the case of Akshay Nitin Malu Vs. ITO in ITA No.165/PUN/2024 for A.Y.2022-23 wherein, ITAT in Para 9 held as under : “9. We find some force in the above arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. It is an admitted fact that although the assessee had originally exercised the option for taxation u/s 115BAC by filing the Form No. 10-1E on 18.07.2022. however, the assessee has filed the return of income on 20.07.2022 declaring total income at Rs.24,01,740/- under the old regime of taxation. It is also an admitted fact that the return was processed on 07.08.2023 which is much after the date of filing of the return. It is not a case that the assessee has filed Form 10-IE and also filed the return under the new tax regime and thereafter filed a revised return withdrawing the option which according to us is not permissible in the said previous year and the assessee can change the option only in the next year However, in the instant case, the assessee after filing the Form 10-IE has opted for the old regime of taxation in the return filed. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the assessee cannot be forced to adopt for the new regime. We, therefore, find merit in the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) was not justified in upholding the action of the CPC in processing the return of income determining the total income at Rs.64,41,940/- under the new regime of taxation. Accordingly, the order of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) is set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.”

Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case we direct the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of the Assessee for deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed.

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25 September, 2025. VINAY BHAMORE