SHOBHIT GUPTA,LUCKNOW vs. DDIT CPC, BENGALURU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 597/LKW/2025Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 November 2025AY 2022-23Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Vice President)1 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 held that the assessee's claim of being in an audited firm was factually correct, making the due date for filing returns 31.10.2022. The rejection of the option under Section 115BAC by the lower authorities was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a partner in an audited firm, opted for the new tax regime under Section 115BAC by filing Form 10-IE before the due date. However, the CPC rejected this option and disallowed the claim.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee, being a partner in an audited firm, was eligible for the new tax regime under Section 115BAC, and if the option was exercised within the prescribed due date.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(1),Section 115BAC,Section 44AB,Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH “SMC”, LUCKNOW

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Prakash Agarwal, Advocate, Shri Akshay Agarwal, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)

PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.:

1.

This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/Addl/JCIT(A)-9, Delhi dated 11.07.2025 pertaining to the assessment year 2022-23. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. That the appellant is a partner in audited firm M/s. Printco and the due date as per section 139(1) was 31.10.2022 for AY 2022-23. The Learned Lower Authorities has erred in law and as well in facts that the appellant is a non-audited case and the due date of return is 31.7.2022

2. That the appellant is a partner in a audited firm and has filed form 10IE on 27.10.2022 for opting new scheme within the due date u/s 139(1). The Learned Lower Authorities has not justified in ignoring the claim of appellant under new scheme u/s 115BAC.”

2.

The facts in brief are that the Central Processing Centre (CPC), Bengaluru vide order dated 16.03.2023 u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) for A.Y. 2022-23 carried out certain rectification, thereby, rejected the option for new regime. Aggrieved against that order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the contention of the assessee before the lower authorities were that the assessee is a partner in Page 2 of 4 partnership firm duly audited in terms of Section 44AB of the Act. The assessee filed his return of income in Form No. 10-IE on 27.10.2022, which was within the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act, thereby fulfilling the requirement for opting for the new tax regime under section 115BAC of the Act. However, the CPC disallowed the claim under section 115BAC and rejected Form No. 10-IE without issuing any notice to the assessee. This contention of the assessee was not found acceptable by the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Now, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

3.

Apropos to the grounds of appeal, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the statements of facts. He submitted that the assessee is a partner in the firm M/s. Printco, which is subject to audit under section 44AB of the Act. Accordingly, the due date for filing the assessee’s return of income was 31.10.2022. The assessee filed his return of income on 27.10.2022, which was within the prescribed due date. It was further submitted that the assessee exercised his option under the new tax regime by filing Form No. 10-IE on 27.10.2022, i.e., before the due date specified under section 139(1) of the Act. The Ld. Counsel contended that, as per the provisions of section 115BAC of the Act, the option to opt for the new scheme is valid if Form No. 10-IE is filed before the due date of filing of ITR under section 139(1) of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer did not allow the assessee’s claim under section 115BAC of the Act and disallowed the same without issuing any show cause notice for rejection. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that the rejection of the claim under section 154 of the Act was also not justified. The CPC has acted beyond its jurisdiction.

4. On the other hand, Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) opposed the submissions and supported the orders of the Lower Page 3 of 4 Authorities. He contended that the Ld. CIT(A) has treated the case of the assessee a non-audit case, therefore, benefit of opting for new regime would not be available to the assessee, under the facts and circumstances of the present case.

5. I have heard the Ld. Representatives of the parties and perused the material available on record. During the course of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is factually incorrect in holding that it was a non-audit case. He further drew my attention to page no. 21, wherein the acknowledgment bearing no. 551513700280922 dated 28.09.2022 for A.Y. 2022-23 is enclosed demonstrating the audit report filed by the firm. Therefore, the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the facts on record. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order. The Assessing Officer would treat the return filed by the assessee as having been filed within the prescribed time and allow the assessee’s claim under the new tax regime in accordance with law. If, he finds that the firm in which the assessee is a partner has filed its audit report in accordance with provisions of law as pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. The grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in terms indicated hereinabove

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 07/11/2025.

More judgments on Section 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →