AMAN SINGH,DHANBAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), DHANBAD

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 343/Ran/2024 (Assessment Year-2021-22) (Virtual Hearing) Aman Singh, I.T.O., 14, Jyoti Sadan, Grewal Colony, Bekar Ward 2(1), Vs. Bandh, Dhanbad-826001 (Jharkhand). Dhanbad. PAN No. FRTPS 1201 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Assessee represented by Shri M.K. Choudhary, Adv. Department represented by Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr.DR Date of hearing 24/07/2025 Date of pronouncement 30/07/2025 O R D E R PER: RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, A.M. 1. This appeal by the appellant is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Hyderabad, [in short, the ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Hyderabad] dated 16/08/2024 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2021-22. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the return of income for the Assessment Year under consideration was filed by the appellant u/s 139 (4) on 28.03.2022 showing a total income of Rs. 17,87,720/- opting for new tax regime u/s 115BAC of the Income Tax Act. Form No. 10IE as required, under sub rule (1) of Rule 21AG was also filed on 26.03.2022 before filing of the return. While filing the return, the IT portal allowed to file the return under new regime u/s 115BAC and also accepted the Form 10IE, as such the appellant, filed the return under new regime, did not claim

ITA No. 343/Ran/2024 Aman Singh Vs ITO any deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act, which were, otherwise, allowable under the old regime: (i) u/s 80C Rs. 1,50,000/- (ii) u/s 80TTA Rs. 8,983/- (iii) u/s 80D Rs. 19,818/- Total Rs. 1,78,801/-

The CPC processed the same u/s 143(1) on 04.08.2022 on a total income of Rs. 17,87,720/- as shown in the return, however, it denied the taxation under new regime u/s 115BAC and raised a tax demand of Rs. 94,720/- without assigning any reason. 3. Against the above order of the CPC, Bangalore, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Ld. Addl./Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -2, Hyderabad who vide the impugned order, decided the grounds of appeal as under: "1. Whether appellant is eligible to claim benefit under section 115BAC?

The first and foremost condition to claim benefit under section 115BAC is that that appellant has to file the return within the time allowed u/s 139(1) of the IT Act as mandated under sub section 5 of section 11 5BAC in the prescribed manner, i.e., by exercising the option (by filling the relevant details and manner prescribed) in the form 10IE as required under the rule 21AG of Income Tax Rules 1962. The appellant has NOT filed the return and exercised the option in the form 10-lE within the due date u/s 139(1) of the IT Act and therefore, he is NOT entitled to claim taxation under new regime u/s 11 5BAC. The argument of the appellant that the portal allowed him to file the form 10-IE is not a valid ground because the appellant is aware of the provisions of Act and Rules and that is the reason he had opted for benefit u/s 115BAC which are very clear that the appellant has to file the return within the due date u/s 139(1) of the IT Act and appellant is well aware that he had missed the deadline and despite knowing that filed form 10IE and claimed the benefit u/s 115BAC on the premise that departmental portal allowed him file the said form. He should be remembered that Department 2

ITA No. 343/Ran/2024 Aman Singh Vs ITO has not given such advertisement or display in the portal that those who can file the 10IE are eligible to come under new regime of taxation. Hence, this claim of appellant is self-serving and accordingly rejected and accordingly, the appellant is ineligible to claim benefit of taxation under section 115BAC.

2.0. The next point to be decided, whether appellant is eligible for deductions u/s 80C, 80D and 80TTA? The relevant section dealing with the deductions under chapter VIA is SOAC and the same is reproduced as under. "Deduction not to be allowed unless return furnished. 80AC. Where in computing the total income of an assessee of any previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing on or after- (i) the 1st day of April, 2006 but before the 1st day of April, 2018, any deduction is admissible under Section 80-IA or Section 80-lAB or Section 80-IB or section 80/IC or section 80-ID or section 80-IE; (ii) The 1st day of April, 2018, any deduction is admissible under any provision of this Chapter under the heading "C—Deductions in respect of certain incomes", no such deduction shall he allowed to him unless he furnishes a return of his income for such assessment year on or before the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139 ". 7.2.4. The sub clause (ii) of the section 80AC makes it mandatory that filing return within the due date u/s 139(1) of the Act is a pre-requisite for claiming any deductions under the chapter VIA, including 800, 80TTA, with effect from AY 2019-20. In view of the clear rule position, no deductions u/s 80C, SOD. 80TTA are admissible to the appellant as the AY under question is 2021-22 and thus, no infirmity found with the intimation made in appellant's case u/s 143(1). 8.0. As a result. appeal of the appellant is DISMISSED."

ITA No. 343/Ran/2024 Aman Singh Vs ITO 3. For that even otherwise Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in not appreciating that the statutory provisions of sub-clause (ii) of section 80AC which required return to be filed within due date u/s 139(1) are only in respect of deductions of Chapter VIA under the heading "C- Deduction in respect of certain incomes" only i.e. in respect of 80HHC, 801A etc. and not in respect of deductions under the heading "B.—Deductions in respect of certain payment" i.e. u/s 80C & 80D and deductions under the heading "CA.—Deductions in respect of other incomes" u/s 80TTA. The aforesaid deductions claimed by the appellant amounting to Rs. 1,78,801/- did not fell under heading "C". As such the order passed is unjustified, incorrect, illegal and without any cogent basis. 4. For those other grounds, if any, will be argued/taken up at the time of hearing. 5. Further, during the course of hearing before us, the Ld. AR submitted that either the tax be calculated under the new regime or if not, aforesaid deductions of Rs.1,78,801/- be allowed to the appellant. The ld. AR also submitted following documents through the paper book filed before this Bench: (i) Acknowledgement of Form 10IE filed on 26/03/2022 alongwith copy of Form 10IE exercising option u/s 115BAC (5). (ii) Acknowledgment of Return of Income filed on 28/03/2022 alongwith first page of Return Form ITR-3 (1 of 69), wherein the appellant has exercised option for New Tax Regime u/s 115BAC. (iii) Intimation u/s 143(1) dated 04/08/2022 wherein the tax has been calculated under the Old Regime i.e. New Regime was not allowed. (iv) Receipt of LIC Premium u/s 80C ₹ 2,10,010/- deposited on 10/06/2020. (v) Receipt of Mediclaim Premium u/s 80D ₹ 19,619/- deposited on 22/02/2021. The Ld. AR of the assessee also argued that since the income tax portal allowed to file return under the new regime under Section 115BAC of the Act and accepted Form No. 10IE under sub-rule (1) of Rule 21AG opting for the new regime, the Assessing Officer/CPC should have accepted the return under the new regime and calculated tax accordingly despite the fact that return was

ITA No. 343/Ran/2024 Aman Singh Vs ITO filed after the due date. It was further submitted by the ld. AR that the learned Addl./Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Hyderabad, erred in not appreciating this fact that the statutory provisions of sub-clause (ii) of Section 80AC which required return to be filed within due date under Section 139(1) are only in respect of deductions of Chapter-VIA under the heading "C- Deduction in respect of certain incomes" only i.e. in respect of 80HHC, 801A etc. and not in respect of deductions under the heading "B—Deductions in respect of certain payment" i.e. u/s 80C & 80D and deductions under the heading "CA.—Deductions in respect of other incomes" u/s 80TTA. The aforesaid deductions claimed by the appellant amounting to Rs. 1,78,801/- does not fall under heading "C". The order passed by the learned Addl./Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Hyderabad, therefore, is unjustified and incorrect. Finally, the ld. AR submitted that either in the new regime or in the old regime, the deductions claimed under Chapter VIA of Rs. 1,78,901/- is allowable deductions irrespective of whether the returns of income filed by the appellant was belated one. Further, since the assessee was not given any opportunity to explain the genuineness of the deductions, the CPC/AO was wrong in denying those deductions under Chapter VIA. This is against the principles of natural justice. 6. On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR for the revenue supported the orders of the lower authorities. 7. We have considered the rival submissions and it is found that the Assessing Officer/CPC has denied the claim of deduction made under Chapter VIA on the ground that the return of income was not filed in time and therefore, the 5

ITA No. 343/Ran/2024 Aman Singh Vs ITO appellant was not entitled to get such deductions. It is also found that the learned Addl./Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Hyderabad also confirmed the order of Assessing Officer/CPC on the same ground that the return was filed after the due date and the Act does not provide to allow the deductions claimed under Chapter VIA when return filed was belated. However, we are of the opinion that the Assessing Officer/CPC and the learned Addl./Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Hyderabad should have allowed the said claim of deductions made under Chapter VIA if the documents filed by the assessee are found to be genuine, irrespective of whether return was filed in time or not. Secondly, the principles of natural justice demand that the assessee must be given the opportunity of being heard before denying the said deductions, which has not been done in the present case. Thus, we find it proper to restore the matter back to the file of ld. Addl./Jt. CIT(A) to examine and consider the genuineness of the claim of deductions and allow the same irrespective of whether the return was filed in time as the benefits under Chapter VIA which is otherwise, allowable under the Act, can’t be denied by holding that the assessee has opted for taxation under the new regime. We hold it accordingly. 8. In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only. Order pronounced in open court on 30th July, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (DUVVURU RL REDDY) (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ranchi, Dated: 30/07/2025 *Ranjan Copy to: 1. Assessee 6

ITA No. 343/Ran/2024 Aman Singh Vs ITO 2. Revenue 3. CIT 4. DR By order 5. Guard File Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Ranchi