NITIN KASLIWAL ,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 880/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 September 2025AY 2024-25Bench: SHRIGAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that while the assessee had not filed their return of income by the due date, thus disentitling them to opt for the new tax regime initially, a remedy exists through condonation of delay applications. The CIT(A) and CPC, Bengaluru were vested with powers to deal with such petitions.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged an order of the CIT(A) which dismissed their appeal against an intimation order. The intimation order denied the assessee the benefit of Section 115BAC for the Assessment Year 2024-25.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee can be allowed to seek condonation of delay in filing the return of income to avail the benefit of Section 115BAC despite the initial denial by the CPC.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 115BAC,Section 119(2)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC-Bench” JAIPUR

Before: SHRIGAGAN GOYAL, AM& SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM

Hearing: 23/09/2025Pronounced: 24/09/2025

vkns'k@ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER .

Assessee-appellant is in appeal. He is feeling aggrieved by the order dated 31.03.2025, passed by Learned CIT(A), Chennai.

Vide impugned order, the appeal filed by the assessee challenging the intimation order dated 13.02.2025, passed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, has been dismissed.

2.

Arguments heard. File perused.

4.

Vide impugned order, Learned CIT(A) observed that as per return of income filed by the assessee, he wanted to opt out of new Tax Regime. In other words, the assessee wanted to be in the old tax regime, as regards the assessment year 2024-25.

CPC, Bangaluru denied the prayer of the assessee opting out of new tax regime, the reason being that the assessee had not filed ITR within the due date as provided u/s 115BAC, and as a result, the assessee was not permitted to claim deduction/allowance.

5.

Learned DR for the department has relied on para 4.4 of the impugned order. From said para, it has been pointed out that Learned CIT(A) was also of the view that in the return of income, the assessee stated in affirmative to opt out of new tax regime, but, the return having not been filed by due date, CPC was justified in denying the benefit of provisions of section 115BAC(6).

At the same time, Ld. DR for the department has drawn our attention to Circular No. 11/2024, dated 01.10.2024, issued by CBDT, providing therein a remedy to the assessee, in suchlike situation, to seek condonation of delay in verifying the return of income, by filing appropriate application before Learned DR has submitted that the assessee has come up in appeal without filing any such application before Learned CIT(A), CPC, Bangaluru, and as such, this appeal deserves to be dismissed, being not maintainable.

At the same time, Ld. DR for the department has submitted that the appellant may move such an application before the competent authority so that prayer of the appellant for condonation of delay is dealt with in accordance with law.

6.

Admittedly, as per circular dated 01.10.2024, in case of delay in verifying the return of income within prescribed time limit, CBDT has provided a remedy to the assessee, and also vested CIT, CPC, Bangaluru with powers for acceptance/rejection of petition u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act, in dealing with suchlike applications.

7.

Admittedly, this is a case where e filing of the return by the assessee was verified after a delay of one day. In the situation, in view of the circular dated 01.10.2024. the assessee could and should have moved appropriate application before Learned CIT, CPC, Bengaluru.

Nitin Kasliwal, jaipur. 8. It is well settled that tax is to be levied in accordance with law. When a remedy has already been provided to such an assessee, as noticed above, and Learned CIT(A), CPC, Bangaluru has been vested with powers u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act, in the interest of justice, we deem it a fit case to allow the assessee to file appropriate application before the competent authority, as per said circular. Result

9.

In view of the above discussion, this appeal is disposed of, for statistical purpose, while granting liberty to the assessee to file appropriate application before Learned CIT, CPC, Bangluru, seeking condonation of delay which crept in verifying the return of income for the Assessment Year under consideration.

File be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Order pronounced in the open court on 24/09/2025.

Sd/- Sd/- ¼xxu xks;y½ ¼ujsUnz dqekj½ (GAGAN GOYAL) (NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 24/09/2025 *Santosh आदेश की प्रतिलिपिअग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू Nitin Kasliwal, jaipur. The Appellant- Nitin Kasliwal, Jaipur. 1. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-1(1), Jaipur. 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ Theld CIT 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेजज. त्महपेजतंत

More judgments on Section 115BAC

All 144 judgments and leading authorities on Section 115BAC →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →