RAHUL KHINDRI,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 (1), AMRITSAR

4. That the order passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, is bad in law as since the adoption of lower tax rate as per section 115BAC cannot be brought under the ambit of adjustment u/s 143(1) which covers 'arithmetical error, incorrect claim, disallowance of loss, disallowance of expenditure, disallowance of deduction or addition of income appearing in form 26AS or form 16A'

5. Without prejudice to the aforesaid grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that even if the benefit of lower tax rate as per section 115BAC is denied to the assessee, then, in such a case, the assessee is entitled to avail deduction under chapter VI- A of the income tax act 1961.

6. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is heard and disposed off

3. Registry has brought to the notice that filing of appeal in this case is time barred by 123 days. The Assessee has already filed an affidavit

37-Asr-2024 Rahul Khindri, Amritsar 3 dated 1.2.2024 for condonation of delay in this case, which is reproduced as under:-

37-Asr-2024 Rahul Khindri, Amritsar

37-Asr-2024 Rahul Khindri, Amritsar 5 4. We have considered the reasons for delay in filing the appeal and we find that the delay should be condoned keeping in view the issue discussed in the letter.

5. The ld. DR had no objection to the condonation of delay.

37-Asr-2024 Rahul Khindri, Amritsar 6 form 10IE before the due date of filing of return i.e. 15.03.2022. In the present case, the delay in filing the Form was only by ten days that to only due to technical glitch.

Later on, the appellant filed a revised return of income on 25.03.2022 in which he had opted for taxation as per the provisions of section 115BAC and also filed Form 10 IE. The appellant in his revised return of income had claimed a refund of Rs. 15860/-. However, the claim of refund in return filed on 37-Asr-2024 Rahul Khindri, Amritsar 7 25.03.2022 was rejected by the CPC, Bengaluru vide order passed u/s 143(1) dated 30.07.2022. The refund was rejected merely due to the fact that the appellant had failed to file form 10IE before the due date of filing of return i.e. 15.03.2022. In the present case, the delay in filing the Form was only by ten days that to only due to technical glitch.

Circular No Date Reason for extension of date as explained Extended to by CBDT in circulars Circular No. 30th Difficulties reported by the taxpayers and 9/2021 dated September, other stakeholders in electronic filing of 20-5-2021 2021 Income-tax returns and various reports of audit CITCULAR NO. 31st Difficulties reported by the taxpayers and 17/2021 December, other stakeholders in electronic filing of 2021 Income-tax returns and various reports of audit CIRCULAR 15th On consideration of difficulties reported by NO. March 2022 the taxpayers and other stakeholders due 01/2022 to COVID and in electronic filing of various reports of audit under the provisions of the Income-tax Act,1961 (Act), the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), in exercise of its powers under Section 119 of the Act, provides relaxation in respect of the following compliances:

4. The due date of furnishing of Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2021-22, which was 31st October 2021 under sub- section (1) of section 139 of the Act, as extended to 30th November 2021 and 15th February 2022 bv Circular No.9/2021

37-Asr-2024 Rahul Khindri, Amritsar 8 dated 20-5-2021 and Circular No.17/2021 dated 9-9-2021 respectively, is hereby further extended to 15th March, 2022

S.NO Events Date 1. Original return filed 31.12.2021 2. Original return processed 12.04.2022 3. Due date of filing form 10IE 15.03.2022 4. Revised return of Income filed 25.03.2022 5. Form 10IE filed 25.03.2022 25.03.2022 6. Claim of refund rejected by CPC 30.07.2022

37-Asr-2024 Rahul Khindri, Amritsar 9 omissions, or any inaccuracies in their originally filed income tax returns by filing a revised return. Section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act 1961 grants taxpayers the right to file a revised return in case they discover any mistakes or need to update information that was not included in the original filing.

5.2 There are key aspects and features of a Revised Income Tax Return under Section 139(5): • Correction of Errors: The primary purpose of filing a revised return is to rectify any errors or omissions present in the originally filed return. This could include inaccuracies in reporting income, claiming deductions, or providing other financial details.

• Timeframe for Filing: Taxpayers can file a revised return within a specified timeframe; the revised return must be filed before tie end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier.

• Voluntary and Involuntary Revision: Taxpayers can file a revised return voluntarily if they discover mistakes on their own. Additionally, the income tax department may request a taxpayer to file a revised return if discrepancies are identified during the assessment process.

• Replacing the Original Return: The revised return replaces the original return filed for a particular assessment year. Once the revised return is 37-Asr-2024 Rahul Khindri, Amritsar 10 submitted, it is considered the final return for that year.

5.3 That any individual or entity that has filed an original income tax return under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, can file a revised income tax return under Section 139(5).

5.4 That Revised Return can be filed before the fast date of filing the return (upto end of Assessment Year) or before the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier.

5.5 Your Honor will appreciate that the appellant had filed a valid revised return and the same could not have been ignored by the CPC.

5.6 That it was found that Form No. 10IE was available with the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) at the time of processing the return. The existence of Form No. 10IE with tine CPC clearly indicates the appellant's intention to opt for the New Tax Regime. That the /submission of Form No. 10IE is directory in nature and not a mandatory requirement. The non-mandatory nature implies that as long as the form is available and the intention to opt for the New Tax Regime is clear, the benefit should not be denied on technical grounds.

6. Furthermore, it is also not the case where no such FORM 10IE was filed by assessee. It is just a case in which FORM 10IE was filed by assessee, which was belated only by ten days (25.03.2022) due to the reason beyond the control of the assessee of technical glitch on web portal. It is also to be noted here that FORM 10IE was filed by assessee before any defect was pointed

37-Asr-2024 Rahul Khindri, Amritsar 11 out by the department. Therefore, the ADIT (CPC) has erred in law cy denying the benefit u/s 115BAC while processing the return u/s 143(1). That the denial of benefit u/s 115BAC by CPC u/s 143(1) is beyond the inherent scope in section 143(1). That the option under section 115BAC has rightly been opted by the appellant and being a genuine claim the same may kindly be allowed.

7. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. ADIT (CPC), the appellant filed an appeal before the CIT(A) vide form 35 dated 19.08.2022 challenging the disallowance made by the Ld. ADIT (CPC). However, the Ld. CIT(A) passed an order u/s 250 on 31.07.2023 dismissing the appeal.

8. Subsequently, the appellant filed an appeal before ITAT Amritsar Bench vide from 36 on 30.05.2024 against the order of CIT (A) on the following grounds: -

9. SUBMISSIONS IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO 1 Ground No 1 That the Ld. CIT(A) vide order u/s 250(6) dated 31.07.2023 has erred in confirming the action of the AO in not providing the benefit of lower tax as per section 115BAC due to the fact that form 10IE was not filed before the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1).

9.1 That Ground No 1 is general in nature and stands covered in subsequent grounds of appeal.

10. SUBMISSIONS IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO 2 Ground No. 2

37-Asr-2024 Rahul Khindri, Amritsar 12 That the Ld. CIT(A) vide order u/s 250(6) dated 31.07.2023 has erred in confirming the action of the AO without appreciating that form 10IE could not be filed before the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) due to technical glitch.

Ground No. 3 That the order passed u/s 250(6) of the income Tax Act, is bad in law as the requirement of filing of form 101E before the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) is directory in nature and as such the benefit lower tax rate cannot be denied.

The Assessee has further submitted that - 10.1 The only objection of ADIT (CPC) is that the assessee has not filed Form 10-IE electronically before due date for filing return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. That Form 10-IE could not be uploaded on ITBA Portal due to the technical glitch as submitted above. The ADIT (CPC) had failed to consider that the minor technical lapse cannot disentitle the assessee from substantial benefit. It is a matter of record that form 10IE was available with CPC at the time of processing return u/s 143(1). Further, filing of form 10IE is directory and not mandatory. In this regard your kind attention is drawn towards the following case of - "ITAT PUNE AKSHAY DEVENDRA BIRARI VERSUS PCIT. CPC. BENGALURU. 2024 f6) TMI 272” where it was held that that the Form No. l0 IE was available with the CPC at the time of processing the return, and it was not a mandatory requirement but directory in nature. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the CPC to consider the Form No. l0 IE and allow the benefit of the New Tax Regime.

37-Asr-2024 Rahul Khindri, Amritsar 13 (a) [2024] 165 taxmann.com 146 (Amritsar - Trib.) IN THE ITAT AMRITSAR BENCH Singh v. A.O.

Section 115BAC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income of individuals and Hindu Undivided Family - Tax on total income (Option for new tax regime) - Assessment year 2021- 22 - Assessee-individual filed return claiming deduction under Chapter VI-A under old scheme - Subsequently, assessee filed revised return, wherein assessee opted for new scheme of taxation under section 115BAC and also submitted Form 10-IE on date of filing revised return - Assessing Officer completed assessment under section 143(1) without allowing benefit of tax rate prescribed under new scheme of taxation on ground that Form 10-IF had not been filed within e allowed under section 139(1) - Whether since requirement of filing Form 10-IE was directory in nature and not mandatory and it was sufficient compliance if said form was before Assessing Officer at time of assessment, Assessing Officer was to be directed to take into consideration Form 10-IE filed by assessee - Held, yes [Para 10.6] [In favour of assessee].

b) 2024 (6) TMI 272 – ITAT Pune Akshay Devendra Birari vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

37-Asr-2024 Rahul Khindri, Amritsar 14 c) 2025 (5) TMI 23 – ITAT Jaipur Jagdish Sone, Prop. of Dhruv Jewels vs. ITO, Jaipur. d) [2024] 158 taxmann.com 114 (Ahmedabad- Trib) ITO (Exemptions) vs. Ramji Mandir Religious and Charitable Trust. e) 2020 (7) TMI 625 – ITAT Cochin M/s Krythium Solutions Pvt Ltd C/o Menon & PAI Advocates Vs. the ACIT, Circle 1(2), Kochi.

1) 2022 (1) TMI 947 – Gujarat High Court in the Southern Gujarat Income Tax Bar Association, Surat Vs. Union of India and 1 other(s); and 37-Asr-2024 Rahul Khindri, Amritsar 15 II) 2023 (11) TMI 656 – Bombay High Court Matrix Publicities and Media India Pvt Ltd. vs. DCIT, Circle 16(1), Mumbai & Ors.

37-Asr-2024 Rahul Khindri, Amritsar 16 CIT(A) on different issue raised by the Assessee cannot be sustained. Thus, Assessee’s appeal filed before us on all the issues is allowed. 14. In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced on 10.03.2025