SANJU SONI,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), JODHPUR

ITA 899/JODH/2024Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 September 2025AY 2023-24Bench: Dr. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the requirement to file Form 10IE is directory, not mandatory. The failure to file Form 10IE by the due date does not invalidate the assessee's claim for the new tax regime, especially when the option was exercised in the preceding year.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged the dismissal of appeals by the CIT(A) concerning assessment years 2022-23 and 2023-24. The assessee had opted for the new tax regime under Section 115BAC but filed Form 10IE and the Income Tax Return after the due date.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee's claim for the new tax regime under Section 115BAC is invalid due to late filing of Form 10IE and the Income Tax Return?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 115BAC,Section 139(4),Section 143(1),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH (VIRTUAL

Before: Dr. MITHA LAL. MEENA & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Soni, Advocate
For Respondent: Smt. Ayushi Sharma, JCIT-DR
Hearing: 08/09/2025Pronounced: 29/09/2025

Per Bench: This common order is to dispose of, the above captioned two appeals, filed by the assessee, as the same involve common issue.

By way of first mentioned appeal, ITA No. 898/Jodh/2024, the assessee has challenged order dated 18.10.2024, passed by learned CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), relating to the assessment year 2022-23, whereby his appeal challenging intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act issued by Centraized Processing Centre (CPC), has been dismissed, on the following grounds:- “On perusal of the documents attached by the appellant, the contention of appellant is not found to be correct. The appella

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 115BAC

All 144 judgments and leading authorities on Section 115BAC →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →