AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal arises from order dated 18.02.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by Ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals)-2, Pune.
In this case, the assessee’s return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act, determining a total income of Rs.8,59,770/- instead of Rs.4,96,400/- as per the return of income. The aggrieved assessee filed an application u/s 154 of the Act, which was rejected by the Ld. AO-CPC, vide order dated 25.07.2025. It is seen that the assessee filed a second rectification application which was also rejected vide order dated 22.08.2025.
The aggrieved assessee approached the Ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) where also he could not succeed on the basis of finding that Form 10IE was filed on 31.07.2024 and the return of income for the said assessment year was filed belatedly on 13.01.2025. It was held that the due date for filing returned of income u/s 139(1) of the Act was 31.07.2024. It was further held that while Form 10IE was filed within the prescribed due date, but the return was filed belatedly and on this basis, the Ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) held that the benefit of Section 115BAC would not available to the assessee.
Further aggrieved, the assessee has approached the ITAT with two grounds challenging this action of the authorities below.
We have considered the submissions of Ld. DR and have gone through the records before us. We are aware that there are a number of coordinate bench orders, whereby such delays have been held to be directory and not mandatory. It is seen that through such orders the coordinate benches have been condoning the delay in filing Form 10-IE and on the same principle, even delayed filing of return of income and have been granting relief to the assessee’s concerned. As an example, we may rely on the case of Arun Kumar Sharma reported in 176 taxmann.com 927 (Del. – Trib.) [2025]. The following is the operative portion of this order: -
“2.A perusal of both the learned lower authorities’ respective findings indicates that they have held the assessee’s claim shifted to the new tax regime under section 115BAC of the Act for the sole reason that he had not submitted the corresponding prescribed Form 10-IE within the due date up to 31st July, 2023 since filed later on 07.08.2023.
3.It is in this factual backdrop that the Tribunal’s recent decision in Harbans Singh vs. AO, CPC [2024] 165 taxmann.com 146/208 ITD 151 (Amritsar – Trib.) has already concluded that the delay in filing of above Form 10-IE is only directory provision than a mandatory one which could even be filed before the assessing authority later on during assessment. I adopt the above detailed reasoning mutandis to accept the assessee’s instant sole substantive grievance in principle and leave it open for the learned Assessing Officer to frame his consequential computation after verifying all the relevant facts.
4.This assessee’s appeal is allowed.”
We can do no better than to follow this order and hold, on the basis of broad principle, that the delay in filing return of income or even Form 10-IE (which was actually filed in time in this case) deserves to be condoned and the claim of the assessee for being taxed u/s 115BAC of the Act deserves to be allowed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.