RAJEEV PANDURANG KAMAT,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3 (3),PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2602/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 May 2025AY 2023-247 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal. It set aside the order of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) and directed the Ld. AO to allow the claim of the assessee by taking into consideration Form 10IE already available on record. The Tribunal reasoned that the claim of benefit under Section 115BAC is in continuity from the preceding AY. Citing the decisions in Akshay Devendra Birari Vs. DCIT and Indo British Garments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, the Tribunal held that once an option under Section 115BAC is exercised, it applies to subsequent assessment years and cannot be withdrawn. The requirement of filing Form 10IE in subsequent years becomes irrelevant if the option has already been exercised and accepted in a prior year. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's Form 10IE for AY 2022-23 was already on record, and the technical inability to re-file it for AY 2023-24 should not disentitle the assessee to the benefit. The issue of whether Form 10IE is mandatory or directory was also addressed by relying on precedents that suggest it is directory.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Rajeev Pandurang Kamat, an individual, filed his return of income for Assessment Year (AY) 2023-24 on July 27, 2023, declaring a total income of Rs. 26,07,690. The return was processed under Section 143(1) by the CPC, Bengaluru, on January 10, 2024. While accepting the declared income, the tax was calculated under the old tax regime, despite the assessee having opted for the new tax regime under Section 115BAC. The assessee's appeal to the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Ludhiana, was dismissed. The appellate authority upheld the Assessing Officer's action, stating that the assessee failed to file Form 10IE for AY 2023-24, even though it was claimed to be in continuity with AY 2022-23, where the claim was also not allowed due to belated filing of Form 10IE.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessee is eligible for the benefit of taxation under Section 115BAC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2023-24, despite not filing Form 10IE for the said year. Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the denial of the Section 115BAC benefit was based on a technicality. They contended that a belated Form 10IE was filed for AY 2022-23, and the IT portal does not allow re-filing of the form once uploaded, causing a technical issue preventing its filing for AY 2023-24. The assessee further argued that filing Form 10IE is directory, not mandatory, relying on the decisions in Akshay Devendra Birari Vs. DCIT and Indo British Garments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue supported the order of the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 115BAC,Section 143(1),Section 139

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA

For Appellant: Shri Sharad Shah
For Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

आदेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधर्ि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned.

दिभ गीय प्रदिदनदि, आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण, “बी” बेंच, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. 5. //सत्य दपि प्रदि// True Copy// आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER,

िररष्ठ दनजी सदचि / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune

More judgments on Section 115BAC

All 144 judgments and leading authorities on Section 115BAC →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →