MAYA RATHORE,JAIPUR V. ASSESSING AUTHORITY, JAIPUR

ITA 823/JPR/2025

AI Insights

Maya Rathore, the appellant, contested the denial of the new tax regime benefit for the Assessment Year 2023-24 by the CPC, which computed her tax under the old regime despite her filing a revised return and Form 10-IE before the due date. The Tribunal examined whether the late filing of Form 10-IE should disqualify the assessee from the new tax regime benefits. The Tribunal referenced several precedents where similar issues were resolved in favor of the assessee, emphasizing that procedural requirements like the filing of Form 10-IE are directory and not mandatory.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 793581 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2023-2024
• Appeal Filed On: 20-05-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Mahesh H. Hinduja vs Ito Wd 21(3)(3), Mumbai, Goetz India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), Harbans Singh vs. AO, CPC, Bengaluru, Akshay Devendra Birari vs DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru, Veena Khindri vs ADIT CPC, Bengaluru, PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 vs KGY GLASS INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTAM SINGH CHOUDHARY
• Assessee Lawyers: VIKASH RAJVANSHI
• Keywords: Set aside; Business income; Revised return; TDS; Futures and options
• Section: 54; 44AD; 139; 80C; 139(5)

Judgement Text

"vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh xxu xks;y] ys[kk lnL;] ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 823/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Years : 2023-24 Maya Rathore B-32, Murli Colony, NU Lite Colony, tonk Road, jaipur. cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2), Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AHEPR1545C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Vikash Rajvanshi, C.A. jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by : Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 11/08/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 26/09/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. Addl/JCIT (A), Agra dated 25.03.2025 passed under section 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2023-24. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The ld. CIT has failed to understand law as well as fact as the benefit of new regime was not allowed to assessee in case of revised return. The assessee had filed the revised return u/s 139(5) on 25.12.2023 before the due date under the new tax regime by filing form no. 10-IE on 25.12.2023. However, in the intimation order and CIT order the Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 823/JPR/2025 Maya Rathore, Jaipur. benefit of the new tax regime was not given to the assessee and the income was computed on old tax regime in place of new tax regime inspite of ITR filed within due date of filing revised return. 2. The assessee craves the right to add, delete, amend or abandon any of the grounds of this appeal at the time or before the actual hearing of the case.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an Individual, derives income from commission and brokerage. The assessee filed her return of income for the for the Financial Year 2022-23 relevant to Assessment Year 2023-24 vide Acknowledgement No. 717463740260723 on 26-07-2023 under the old tax regime showing total income of Rs. 10,33,970/- declared u/s 44AD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 under the head ‘Income from Business or Profession’. The assessee had commission income of Rs. 25,00,000/- from Notus Tech Consulting Services Pvt. Ltd. on which TDS of Rs. 1,25,000/- was duly deducted under section 194H. Later on the appellant filed her revised return under the New Tax Regime before the due date for filing revised return on 25.12.2023 declaring total income of Rs. 21,14,500/- claiming that that since the income was not received in Financial Year 2022-23 but in Financial Year 2023-24. The assessee also paid additional tax of Rs. 2,96,770/- on the said income declared in the revised return. The assessee also filed the required Form 10-IE on the Income Tax Portal duly before filing the revised return of income but after the due date specified under Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 823/JPR/2025 Maya Rathore, Jaipur. section 139(1) of the IT Act, 1961. However, the ld. CPC passed Intimation Order under section 143(1) of the IT Act, 1961 on 31.01.2024 in not allowing the benefit of the new tax regime and computing tax as per the old regime raised a demand of Rs. 82,920/- against the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A). The ld. CIT (A) observing that the appellant failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of exercising the option under section 115BAC(5)(i) within the specified time limit, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Now, the assessee has come in appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced herein above. 4. At the time of hearing before us, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted his written submission as under :- “ 1.1. The assessee Maya Rathore is a 65-year-old individual and was earning income from commission and brokerage. The assessee filed her return for the A.Y. 2023-24 (F.Y. 2022-23) vide Acknowledgement No. 717463740260723 on 26-07-2023 under the old tax regime showing total income of Rs. 10,33,970 declared u/s 44AD under the head Income from Business or Profession as enclosed vide PB No.10. 1.2 The assessee had commission income of Rs. 25,00,000 from Notus Tech Consulting Services Private Limited on which TDS of Rs. 1,25,000 was duly deducted under section 194H. Since income from Notus Tech Consulting Services Private Limited was not received in the relevant AY 2023-24 but in next year i.e. was received in FY 2023-24 and after calculating final income the assessee filed revised return on 25-12- 2023 duly before the due date for filing revised return i.e. 31-12-2023 vide acknowledgement no. 572039900251223 enclosed vide PB No. 11-15,revised Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 823/JPR/2025 Maya Rathore, Jaipur. computation is enclosed vide PB No. 11-15. Before filing of revised ITR, assessee applied for new tax regime of taxation u/s 115BAC by submitting Form 10-IE. The portal of Income tax accepted assessee application and just after submission of Form 10-IE dated 25/12/2023 as enclosed vide PB No.16-18, assessee filed her revised ITR without claiming deductions under chapter VI-A in view of conditions of availing new regime as per sub section 2 of Section 115BAC.But the CPC intimation dated 31/01/2024 was received by assessee along with demand of Rs. 82,920/-, as well as CIT Appeal did not give benefit of 115BAC as assessee has not filed Form 10-IE before the due date of filing of ITR u/s 139(1) i.e. 31-07-2023. In view of sub-section 5 of section 115BAC due to the assessee had opted for the new tax regime before the filing of the revised due date of return, which offers a lower of tax slabs as compared to the old tax regime. However, The CPC has erroneously computed the tax liability based on the old regime, leading to an inflated tax and raised wrong demand of Rs. 82,920 against the assessee as enclosed vide PB No.19-29. Due to the application of the incorrect old tax regime, a demand of Rs. 82,920 has been raised against the assessee, which is not in accordance with the correct tax liability computed under the new regime, computation of revised tax liability is enclosed vide PB No.11-15. 1.3 The appellant has opted for a new scheme while filing a revised return, as the new scheme was more beneficial for the assessee as per IT Act, comparison of tax liability between old scheme and new scheme is enclosed vide PB No. 30. The assessee has also filed the required form 10-IE on 25-12-2023 as enclosed vide PB No. 16-18 before filing revised return on 25-12-2023 vide Acknowledgement No. 572039900251223 enclosed vide PB No. 11-15. 1.4 CPC on 31-01-2024 vide PB No. 19 in processing the ITR have disallowed the claim of taxation u/s 115BAC and calculated tax on the basis of old tax regime.In any event, it is not a mandatory requirement for filing of Form No.10IE but directory in nature. The Form No.10IE was very much available with the CPC and the CPC ought to have considered the same allowing the benefit of New Tax RegimeThe substantive conditions to allow the claim of this new regime is given in sub-section 2, where assessee is not entitled to get various deductions if he opts for taxation u/s 115BAC instead of normal rates of taxation given in finance Act. Sub-section 5 prescribes the procedure to avail this section. Filing of Form 10-IE and that too within time is only the procedural part. When substantive conditions are fulfilled the delay in filing the Form should be condoned or ignored. The relevant part of section 115BAC is as under: 1.5 Section 115BAC: New Tax Regime Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 823/JPR/2025 Maya Rathore, Jaipur. Section 115BAC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, introduced a new tax regime in India, effective from the assessment year 2021-22 (financial year 2020-21). This new tax regime offers individual taxpayers and Hindu Undivided Families (HUFs) the option to pay income tax at lower slab rates, provided they forgo certain exemptions and deductions available under the old tax regime. Here are the eligibility criteria and key features of Section 115BAC: Eligibility Criteria: a) Individual Taxpayers: Any individual taxpayer, whether a resident or non-resident, can opt for the new tax regime under Section 115BAC. b) Hindu Undivided Families (HUFs): HUFs are also eligible to opt for the new tax regime. c) No Restrictions on Income Source: The option is available to taxpayers irrespective of their income source, be it salary, business income, or other sources. Key Features and Conditions: Lower Tax Rates: Up to ₹2.5 lakh Nil ₹2,50,001 to ₹5 lakh 5% ₹5,00,001 to ₹7.5 lakh 10% ₹7,50,001 to ₹10 lakh 15% ₹10,00,001 to ₹12.5 lakh 20% ₹12,50,001 to ₹15 lakh 25% Above ₹15 lakh 30% No Exemptions/Deductions: To avail of the lower tax rates, taxpayers must forgo several exemptions and deductions, including but not limited to: a) Standard deduction of ₹50,000 for salaried individuals b) House Rent Allowance (HRA) c) Leave Travel Allowance (LTA) d) Deductions under Section 80C (e.g., LIC premium, PPF, etc.), Section 80D (medical insurance), and others under Chapter VI-A Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No. 823/JPR/2025 Maya Rathore, Jaipur. e) Interest on housing loan under Section 24(b) Opting for the New Regime: a) For Salaried Individuals: The choice to opt for the new tax regime must be made at the time of filing the income tax return. They can choose to switch between the old and new regimes every financial year. b) For Individuals with Business Income: Once opted for, they cannot switch back to the old regime in the subsequent years unless they cease to have business income. They need to exercise the option before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1). Form 10-IE Taxpayers opting for the new regime need to submit Form 10-IE before filing the income tax return. In our case the assessee has exercised the option by filing form 10IE before filing revised return under section 115BAC and fulfilled the eligibility criteria for filing return under section 115BAC, further assessee also ensures that such option once exercised shall apply to subsequent assessment years. However, the Ld. CPC erroneously computed the tax liability based on the old regime instead of new regime, leading to wrong inflated tax and raised wrong demand of Rs. 82,920 against the assessee. Hence, benefit of new tax regime must be allowed. 1.6 The relevant part of section 139 is as under: Section 139: Revised Return Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, deals with the filing of income tax returns in India. The concept of a \"Revised Return\" is crucial for taxpayers who have discovered any omission or wrong statement in their original tax return after it has been filed. The eligibility criteria and provisions for filing a revised return have evolved over time. Eligibility Criteria for Filing a Revised Return under Section 139(5) 1) Original Return Filed: To be eligible to file a revised return, the taxpayer must have already filed an original return under Section 139(1) (within the due date) or belated return under Section 139(4) (after the due date but before the end of the relevant assessment year). 2) Discovery of Errors or Omissions: The need for a revised return arises when the taxpayer discovers any omission or any wrong statement in the original return. This Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA No. 823/JPR/2025 Maya Rathore, Jaipur. can include errors in income reporting, tax computation, or claiming deductions and exemptions. 3) Time Limit: The revised return can be filed before the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier. As per recent amendments, this is typically by 31st December, 2023 of the assessment year. 4) Multiple Revisions: A taxpayer can file a revised return multiple times within the stipulated period if further errors are discovered or if further corrections are needed. Important Points to Note: 1) Assessment Year: The assessment year is the year immediately following the financial year in which the income was earned. For instance, for income earned in the financial year 2022-23, the assessment year is 2023-24. 2) Verification: The revised return must be verified in the same manner as the original return. If the original return was e-filed, the revised return must also be e-filed and verified. 3) Consequences of Inaccuracy: It is crucial to ensure the revised return is accurate. If the Income Tax Department finds discrepancies or deliberate misstatements, penalties and interest may be levied, and in severe cases, prosecution may ensue. 1.7 In our case the assessee has filed the original return of income for the Assessment Year 2023-24 on 26-07-2023 under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Subsequent to the filing of the original return, the petitioner discovered certain omissions in the original return in which business income declared by assessee was Rs.10,32,045, later on it was increased to Rs. 21,14,500 in revised return and also assessee has further paid increased tax amounting Rs.2,96,770.In accordance with section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the petitioner filed a revised return on 25-12-2023, before the expiry of prescribed time period i.e. 31/12/2023 of filing of revised return. The assessee has filed revised the original return filed on 26/07/2023 vide acknowledgement No. 717463740260723 by filing revised return on 25/12/2023 vide Acknowledgement No. 572039900251223 which is within the prescribed time period i.e. 31/12/2023 of filing of revised return. Hence, assessee is eligible for taxing under new tax regime. 1.8In similar case as decided by Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai Bench dated 20.06.2018 in ITA no.176/Mum/2017 for A.Y. 2011-12 ofMahesh H. Hinduja, Mumbai vs Ito Wd 21(3)(3), Mumbai vide PB No.: 31-34. “The assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year on 28th July 2011, declaring total income of 4,91,750. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return of income under section 139(5) of the Act on 20th October 2012, declaring total income of Printed from counselvise.com 8 ITA No. 823/JPR/2025 Maya Rathore, Jaipur. 6,24,050. In the said revised return of income the assessee, while offering long term capital gain of 49,96,681, claimed deduction of the said amount under section 54 of the Act towards investment of an amount of 1,15,00,000 in a new residential house. Thus, in effect, no capital gain was offered to tax. Alleging that the assessee filed the revised return of income after issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act, the Assessing Officer held that the said revised return of income filed by the assessee claiming deduction under section 54 of the Act being invalid is not acceptable and accordingly, completed the assessment rejecting assessee's claim of deduction under section 54 of the Act. However, it was held that The Departmental Authorities are not expected to deny assessee's legitimate claim by raising technical objection, hence “, assessee's appeal is allowed.” Whereas in our assessee case, the assessee has filed original return under old scheme on 26/07/2023, after that assessee realized that the new scheme u/s. 115BAC is more beneficial and accordingly, filed the revised return of income by seeking change over from the old scheme to the new scheme. The assessee also filed the required form 10IE for Choosing new scheme on 25/12/2023 before filing the revised return on 25/12/2023 and fulfilled the requirements for availing benefit under the new scheme u/s 115 BAC and also according to income tax act the revised income tax return completely replaces the original one, making it the final submission for the relevant assessment year. 1.9 In similar case as decided by Supreme Court of IndiaGoetz India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) on 24 March 2006 (2006)204CTR(SC)182, [2006]284ITR323(SC), AIRONLINE 2006 SC 81, (2006) 157 TAXMAN 1, (2006) 204 CUR TAX REP 182, (2006) 284 ITR 323, (2006) 195 TAXATION 228 “Goetz India Ltd. (the appellant) filed its income tax return without claiming a particular deduction. Later, during the assessment proceedings, the appellant made a request to the Assessing Officer (AO) to allow this deduction by filing a letter, not by revising the return. The AO rejected the request on the ground that the claim was not made through a revised return. The Supreme Court held that the Assessing Officer does not have the authority to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by a revised return. The taxpayer must file a revised return to claim a deduction that was not claimed in the original return. This judgment underscores the necessity for taxpayers to adhere strictly to statutory procedures when making claims for deductions. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case clarifies that procedural compliance is paramount in the administration of tax laws, and deviations from the prescribed methods for making claims or corrections are not permissible”. Whereas our case is much better as the assessee has claimed benefit of reduced tax liability by filing revised return on 25/12/2024 before due date of filing of revised return, thereby Printed from counselvise.com 9 ITA No. 823/JPR/2025 Maya Rathore, Jaipur. fulfilling the procedural requirement laid down by the income tax act for claiming benefit of reduced tax liability. In view of the above your honor, merely late filing of Form 10-IE should not become basis of not allowing benefit of new regime of lower taxation and Hence, kindly consider revised return under new scheme under section 115 BAC and give necessary directions to CPC /AO for allowing the assessee benefit of new tax regime. 1.10In similar covered case as decided by Hon’ble High Court dated 18.10.2023 in R/TAX APPEAL NO. 722 of 2023 in case PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 v/s KGY GLASS INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. vide PB No. 43-47: “From the findings recorded by the Tribunal, it is noticed that the assessee while filing return of income opted to be taxed concessional rate @ 22% in case of company as per provisions of Section 115BBA of the Act. However, it could not upload Form No.10-IC on account of technical problem on ITBA portal at the relevant time. During relevant period, the time to file Form 10IC was extended up to NEUTRAL CITATION C/TAXAP/722/2023 ORDER DATED: 18/10/2023 undefined 30.06.2022. The assessee filed such Form before Assessing Officer on 29.06.2022. The copy of such form was placed before ld. CIT(A). It is also not in dispute that this is the first year, in which, the assessee was to avail such benefits. Further, Form 10-IC was furnished by the assessee on 29.01.2022 and therefore, we are of the opinion that since the assessee could not upload Form No.10-IC, on ITBA portal on account of technical error, there being no fault of the assessee, it could not be deprived of benefit particularly when this being the first year for availing such benefits.” Our case is on same analogy as the assessee has filed original return under old scheme on 26/07/2023, after that assessee realized that the new scheme u/s. 115BAC is more beneficial and accordingly, filed the revised return of income by seeking change over from the old scheme to the new scheme. The assessee also filed first time the required form 10IE for choosing new scheme on 25/12/2023 before filing the revised return on 25/12/2023 and fulfilled the requirements for availing benefit under the new scheme u/s 115BAC and according to income tax act, revised income tax return completely replaces the original one, making it the final submission for the relevant assessment year. Hence, new tax regime must be allowed. 1.11 In similar covered case as decided by Hon’ble ITAT Amritsar Bench dated 24.07.2024 in ITA no.25/Asr/2024 for A.Y. 2021-22 in case of Harbans Singh, Amritsar, [PAN: ACDPS4247G] vs AO, CPC, Bengaluru vide PB No. 38-42: Printed from counselvise.com 10 ITA No. 823/JPR/2025 Maya Rathore, Jaipur. “As such considering all aspects of the matter, and noting the legal conclusions derived at by various courts and tribunals, on the facts of respective cases, cited above, we are in agreement with the decision of the coordinate bench I.T.A. No.25/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 9 of the Pune tribunal in the case of Akshay Devendra Birani (supra), and we hold that requirement of filing form 10-IE is directory in nature and not mandatory and it is sufficient compliance if the said form is before the AO at the time of assessment. As such we direct the CPC to take into consideration the form 10-IE filed by the assessee and pass appropriate orders.” Our case is on same analogy as the assessee has filed original return under old scheme on 26/07/2023, after that assessee realized that the new scheme u/s. 115BAC is more beneficial and accordingly, filed the revised return of income by seeking change over from the old scheme to the new scheme. The assessee also filed the required form 10IE for Choosing new scheme on 25/12/2023 before filing the revised return on 25/12/2023 that is before the assessment of revised return u/s 139(5) and fulfilled the requirements for availing benefit under the new scheme u/s 115 BAC and according to income tax act, revised income tax return completely replaces the original one u/s 139(1), making it the final submission for the relevant assessment year. Hence, kindly direct CPC to accept our form 10IE and new tax regime must be allowed. 1.12 In similar covered case as decided byHon’ble ITAT Pune “SMC” Bench dated 05.06.2024 in ITA no.782/Pune/2024 for A.Y. 2023-24 in case of Akshay Devendra Birari, Nashik ,Maharashtra, PAN: BPFPB7648N vs DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru vide PB No. 35-37: “Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual deriving income under the head “Salaries” and income from Futures and Options in shares. The Return of Income for the A.Y.2023-24 was filed under the provisions of section 115BAC in New Tax Regime on 31.07.2023 declaring income of Rs.40,54,450/-. The said return of income was processed u/s.143(1)(a) vide intimation dated 10.01.2024assessing the income of Rs.40,54,450/- denying the benefit of New Tax Regime. Being aggrieved by the above intimation order, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A)/NFAC who vide impugned order confirmed the action of the CPC by holding that the appellant submitted the Form No.10IE only on 10.01.2024 not before the prescribed due date, i.e. 31.07.2023. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. Printed from counselvise.com 11 ITA No. 823/JPR/2025 Maya Rathore, Jaipur. When the appeal was called on, none appeared on behalf of the appellant despite due service of notice of hearing. After hearing the ld. DR and perusing the material on record, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte qua the appellant. We heard the ld. Sr. DR and perused the relevant material on record. The ld. Sr. DR submits that from the A.Y. 2023-24 onwards New Tax Regime was made optional. Once the assessee opts for New Tax Regime, he needs to file Form No.10IE before the filing of the income tax return. The assessee in the instant case had filed the Form No.10IE only on 10.01.2024. Therefore, the CPC had rightly denied the benefit of New Tax Regime and hence, no interference is called for. The solitary issue that arises for our consideration in the present appeal is whether the CPC was justified in denying the benefit of New Tax Regime. Admittedly, the appellant had failed to submit the prescribed Form No.10IE in order to claim the benefit of New Tax Regime before the due date for filing the return of income. However, the appellant had filed the said form on 10.01.2024 on which date the CPC had processed the return of income u/s.143(1)(a) denying the benefit of New Tax Regime. In any event, it is not a mandatory requirement for filing of Form No.10IE but directory in nature. The Form No.10IE was very much available with the CPC and the CPC ought to have considered the same allowing the benefit of New Tax Regime.Therefore, we direct the CPC to amend the intimation by taking into consideration the Form No.10IE, as the same was available with the CPC at the time of processing the return of income. We order accordingly.” Our case is on same analogy as the assessee has filed original return under old scheme on 26/07/2023, after that assessee realized that the new scheme u/s 115BAC is more beneficial and accordingly, filed the revised return of income by seeking change over from the old scheme to the new scheme. The assessee also filed the required form 10IE for Choosing new scheme on 25/12/2023 before filing the revised return on 25/12/2023 and fulfilled the requirements for availing benefit under the new scheme u/s 115 BAC and according to income tax act, revised income tax return completely replaces the original one, making it the final submission for the relevant assessment year. Hence, it is not a mandatory requirement for filing of Form No.10IE but directory in nature. The Form No.10IE was very much available with the CPC and the CPC ought to have considered the same allowing the benefit of New Tax Regime. Therefore, kindly direct the CPC to amend the intimation by taking into consideration the Form No.10IE, as the same was available with the CPC at the time of processing the return of income 1.13In similar case as decided by Hon’ble ITAT Division Bench, Amritsar dated 10.03.2025 in ITA no. 443/Asr/2024 for A.Y. 2020-21 ofVeena Khindri, Srinagar vs ADIT CPC, Bengaluru vide PB No. 63-79: Printed from counselvise.com 12 ITA No. 823/JPR/2025 Maya Rathore, Jaipur. “We find that the Assessee could not file its return of income on or before the date of filing of return of income as required u/s 139 of the Act but filed its ITR within the extended period of time (extended by CBDT). But in this case, there was some technical glitch on the part of the CPC and Income Tax Portal of filing of return of income. The Counsel of the Assessee has already brought on record different case laws in its favour passed by different authorities. We find that the Assessee has filed its return during the extended period (as already extended for filing of the return by the CBDT vide its different Circulars mentioned above). A copy of form 10 IE was also filed before the processing of the return. We find that the Assessee has fulfilled its duty as required under the law. Accordingly, the findings given by the Addl. 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.” In view of the above your honor, merely late filing of Form 10-IE should not become basis of not allowing new taxation regime. As already decided in covered cases that Form 10IE is filed before processing the return as e Form No.10IE was very much available with the CPC at the time of return processing and the CPC ought to have considered the same allowing the benefit of New Tax Regime. Hence, kindly direct the CPC to amend the intimation by taking into consideration the Form No.10IE, as the same was available with the CPC at the time of processing the return of income under section 115 BAC.Hence, new tax regime must be allowed.” 4.1 The ld. AR of the assessee in support of his case, has further filed the Paper Book index as under :- S No. Particulars Page No. 1. CIT Appeals Written Submission for benefit of new tax regime uploaded on 17-03-2025. 1-9 2. Original ITR dated 26-07-2023 for A.Y. 2023-24 in Normal Tax Regime. 10 3. Revised ITR dated 25-12-2023 for A.Y. 2023-24 and Revised Computation for the A.Y. 2023-24 as per new Tax Regime. 11-15 4. Form10IE having acknowledgement no. 572027120251223 dated 25-12-2023 for A.Y. 2023-24. 16-18 5. IntimationOrder from CPC dated 31-01-2024 for A.Y. 2023-24 . 19-29 6. Comparison of Taxability Old Regime v/s New Regime for A.Y. 2023-24. 30 7. Similar coveredDecision by Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai Bench dated 20.06.2018 in ITA no.176/Mum/2017 for A.Y. 2011-12 ofMahesh H. Hinduja, Mumbai vs Ito Ward 21(3)(3), Mumbai for allowing benefit of new tax regime. 31-34 Printed from counselvise.com 13 ITA No. 823/JPR/2025 Maya Rathore, Jaipur. 8. Similar covered Decision by Hon’ble ITAT Pune “SMC” Bench dated 05.06.2024 in ITA no.782/Pune/2024 for A.Y. 2023-24 in case of Akshay Devendra Birari, 103/2, Shriheramb, Mitranagar, Baglan, Satana, Nashik 423 301 Maharashtra, PAN: BPFPB7648N vs DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru. 35-37 9. Similar covered Decision by Hon’ble ITAT Amritsar Bench dated 24.07.2024 in ITA no.25/Asr/2024 for A.Y. 2021-22 in case of Harbans Singh, H. NO. 2199, Rani Bazar, Amritsar, [PAN: ACDPS4247G] vs AO, CPC, Bengaluru. 38-42 10. Similar covered Decision by Hon’ble High Court dated 18.10.2023 in R/TAX APPEAL NO. 722 of 2023 in case PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 v/s KGY GLASS INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. 43-47 11. Similar covered Decision by Hon’ble ITATJAIPUR BENCHES, “SMC” JAIPUR dated 19.02.2024 in ITA. No. 22/JPR/2024 for A.Y. 2014-15 in case of Rajesh Agarwal, Jaipur Vs. Income-tax Officer,Ward-4(1),Jaipur. 48-62 12. Similar covered Decision byHon’ble ITAT Division Bench, Amritsar dated 10.03.2025 in ITA no. 443/Asr/2024 for A.Y. 2020-21 ofVeena Khindri, Srinagar vs ADIT CPC, Bengaluru. 63-79 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 6. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and gone through the orders of the lower authorities. In this case the assessee originally filed her Income Tax Return under Old Tax Regime on 26.07.2023. Later on, to opt for the New Tax Regime the assessee has filed the Revised Return along with Form 10-IE on-line on 25.12.2023 before the due date for filing revised return i.e. 31.12.2023. The CPC denied the benefit of New Tax Regime for the reason that Form 10-IE filed after the due date specified under section 139(1) of the Act, 1961 and processed the return of the assessee under Old Tax Regime raising a demand of Rs. 82,920/-. The ld. CIT (A) confirmed the order of CPC observing that the appellant failed to exercise the option to be taxed under the new tax regime in the Printed from counselvise.com 14 ITA No. 823/JPR/2025 Maya Rathore, Jaipur. manner and within the time limit prescribed under section 115BAC(5)(i) of the Act. The Bench noted that similar type of issue was considered by Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Pune in the case of Akshay Devendra Birari vs. DCIT, CPC in ITA No. 782/Pune/2024 dated 05.06.2024 wherein the Coordinate Benchrestored the matter back to the CPC by observing in para 7 & 8 of its order as under :- “ 7. ………… Admittedly, the appellant had failed to submit the prescribed Form No.10IE in order to claim the benefit of New Tax Regime before the due date for filing the return of income. However, the appellant had filed the said form on 10.01.2024 on which date the CPC had processed the return of income u/s.143(1)(a) denying the benefit of New Tax Regime. In any event, it is not a mandatory requirement for filing of Form No.10IE but directory in nature. The Form No.10IE was very much available with the CPC and the CPC ought to have considered the same allowing the benefit of New Tax Regime. Therefore, we direct the CPC to amend the intimation by taking into consideration the Form No.10IE, as the same was available with the CPC at the time of processing the return of income. We order accordingly. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.” We further find that the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Amritsar has considered similar issue in the case of Harbans Singh vs. AO CPC in ITA No. 25/Asr/2024 dated 24.07.2024 wherein the Tribunal directed the CPC to take into consideration the Form 10-IE filed by the assessee and pass appropriate orders by observing as under :- Printed from counselvise.com 15 ITA No. 823/JPR/2025 Maya Rathore, Jaipur. “ 10.6 As such considering all aspects of the matter, and noting the legal conclusions derived at by various courts and tribunals, on the facts of respective cases, cited above, we are in agreement with the decision of the coordinate bench I.T.A. No.25/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 9 of the Pune tribunal in the case of Akshay Devendra Birani (supra), and we hold that requirement of filing form 10-IE is directory in nature and not mandatory and it is sufficient compliance if the said form is before the AO at the time of assessment. As such we direct the CPC to take into consideration the form 10-IE filed by the assessee and pass appropriate orders. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No. 25/Asr/2024 is allowed for statistical purposes.” In view of the above decisions of the Coordinate Benches in the cases, supra, we set aside the action of ld. CPC in not granting the benefit of new tax regime to the appellant and direct the ld. AO to amend the intimation passed u/s 143(1) by allowing the benefit of New Tax Regime as per section 115BAC of the Income tax Act,1961. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 26/09/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼ xxu xks;y ½ ¼MkWa-,l-lhrky{eh½ (GAGAM GOYAL) (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 26/09/2025 *Santosh vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Maya Rathore, Jaipur. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-6(2), Jaipur. 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ The ld CIT Printed from counselvise.com 16 ITA No. 823/JPR/2025 Maya Rathore, Jaipur. 4. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File ITA No. 823/JPR/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asstt. Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "