RANGANATHAN ANANTHARAMAN,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, NCC-4, , COIMBATORE
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 10-IE is directory in nature and that the benefit of Section 115BAC should not be denied for AY 2022-23 simply because the AY 2021-22 return was belated. The denial for AY 2022-23, despite the return being filed in time, was not justified.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed concessional tax rates under Section 115BAC by filing Form 10-IE. However, the CPC denied this benefit for AY 2021-22 and subsequent years due to a belated return for AY 2021-22 and confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee appealed this denial for AY 2022-23 as well.
What were the issues?
Whether the denial of concessional tax rates under Section 115BAC for AY 2022-23 is justified when the form was filed on time but the benefit was denied for AY 2021-22 due to a belated return.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide 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.
- Akshay Devendra Birari v. DCIT10 citing164 Taxmann.com 58 · 2024
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
(िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Shri Ranganathan Anantharaman DCIT 37/ 2 &3 SAS garden 2nd floor, बनाम/ Non-Corporate Circle-4 Sri Ram Nagar Chokkampudur Road, Coimbatore. Vs. Coimbatore-641 039. �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. ADIPR-8127-N (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (� थ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri N.V. Balaji (Advocate) -Ld.AR � थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Dr. Samuel Pitta (JCIT) -Ld. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 22-08-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 03-09-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)
The sole grievance of the assessee, in the captioned appeal, is application of correct rates of taxes. The impugned order has been passed by Learned Addl. / JCIT Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 2, Gurugram [CIT(A)] on 29-03-2024 in the matter of an intimation issued by CPC u/s 143(1) of the Act on 22-02-2023 raising certain demand against the assessee. This was on account of the fact that the assessee claimed concessional rate of tax u/s 115BAC which was computed by CPC under old regime i.e., at normal rates. The assessee laid its claim on the strength of Form 10-IE which was filed on 22-03-2022 starting from AYs 2021-22. The assessee submitted that it was not required to exercise this option every year since option once exercised, would apply to subsequent years as well. However, CPC denied the benefit of the same. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of CPC on the ground that the return of income for AY 2021-22 was filed belatedly u/s 139(4). The benefits of Sec.115BAC would not be applicable for belated filings. Given the fact that the claim for the provisions of Sec.115BAC was not valid for AY 2021-22, the assessee did not fresh Form in this year. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The Ld. AR has submitted that this form could be filed only once and since the assessee had already filed this form once, it could not file another form on the system / ITBA portal. In other words, the assessee is precluded from claiming the benefits in all the subsequent years also.
It is quite clear that the assessee, in clear terms, want to claim concessional benefit from AY 2021-22 onwards. For the said purpose, it has filed requisite Form No.10-IE on 22-03-2022. The said benefit has been denied for AY 2021-22 since the return of income has been filed belatedly. However, this benefit has been denied for AY 22-23 also despite the fact that the return of income has been filed in time. The same could not be held to be justified from any angle. If the view of Ld. CIT(A) is accepted, the assessee would be precluded forever to claim this concession. The Pune Bench of Tribunal in Akshay Devendra Birari (164 Taxmann.com 58) held that filing of this form was directory in nature. Since the form was made available to CPC at the time of processing of return of income, the benefit thereof would be available to the assessee. Under these circumstances, we direct CPC to provide the impugned benefit and amend the intimation issued to the assessee taking into consideration Form No.10-IE as filed by the assessee on 22- 03-2022.
The appeal stand allowed. Order pronounced on 3rd September, 2024
More judgments on Section 115BAC
- Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs Rakesh Kumar Malani, JaipurITA 1425/JPR/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
- Income Tax Officer, Tonk vs Dharam Chand Jain, TonkITA 1388/JPR/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
- Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs Anita Sharma, JaipurITA 1344/JPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Anshul Jagruchi Trust, Laxman Singh Block… vs Income Tax Officer Ward 6(2), C.R…ITA 1513/JPR/2026[2025-26]Status: Heard15 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
- Samaj Sahyogi Sanstha, Jaipur vs Income Tax Officer, JaipurITA 126/JPR/2026[2024-2025]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2024-2025
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vajram Infra Material Industries vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Tyre Center vs. The Superintendent Of CGSTAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026