NITIN KASLIWAL ,JAIPUR V. ITO WARD 1(1), JAIPUR

ITA 880/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Nitin Kasliwal, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the Learned CIT(A), Chennai, which dismissed his appeal challenging the intimation order passed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. The intimation order denied him the benefit of section 115BAC, as he had not filed his Income Tax Return (ITR) within the due date specified under the new tax regime. The department argued that the appellant did not file an application for condonation of delay as provided under section 119(2)(b) of the Act, and thus the appeal was not maintainable. The tribunal, referencing a CBDT circular, allowed the appellant to file a condonation application.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 792962 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2024-2025
• Appeal Filed On: 30-05-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTAM SINGH CHOUDHARY
• Assessee Lawyers: ROHAN SOGANI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Competent authority
• Section: 119(2)(b)

Judgement Text

"vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC-Bench” JAIPUR Jh xxu xks;y] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRIGAGAN GOYAL, AM& SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihyla-@ITA No. 880/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2024-25 Nitin Kasliwal House No. 109, Shilp Colony, Jhotwara, jaipur. cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkjla-@PAN/GIR No.: BGKPK9157R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Sh. Rohan Sogani, C.A. jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing :23/09/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 24/09/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER . Assessee-appellant is in appeal. He is feeling aggrieved by the order dated 31.03.2025, passed by Learned CIT(A), Chennai. Vide impugned order, the appeal filed by the assessee challenging the intimation order dated 13.02.2025, passed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, has been dismissed. 2. Arguments heard. File perused. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 880/JPR/2025 Nitin Kasliwal, jaipur. 3. Vide intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act issued on 13.02.2025, the assessee-appellant was denied benefit of provisions of section 115BAC. 4. Vide impugned order, Learned CIT(A) observed that as per return of income filed by the assessee, he wanted to opt out of new Tax Regime. In other words, the assessee wanted to be in the old tax regime, as regards the assessment year 2024-25. CPC, Bangaluru denied the prayer of the assessee opting out of new tax regime, the reason being that the assessee had not filed ITR within the due date as provided u/s 115BAC, and as a result, the assessee was not permitted to claim deduction/allowance. 5. Learned DR for the department has relied on para 4.4 of the impugned order. From said para, it has been pointed out that Learned CIT(A) was also of the view that in the return of income, the assessee stated in affirmative to opt out of new tax regime, but, the return having not been filed by due date, CPC was justified in denying the benefit of provisions of section 115BAC(6). At the same time, Ld. DR for the department has drawn our attention to Circular No. 11/2024, dated 01.10.2024, issued by CBDT, providing therein a remedy to the assessee, in suchlike situation, to seek condonation of delay in verifying the return of income, by filing appropriate application before Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 880/JPR/2025 Nitin Kasliwal, jaipur. Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangluru, vested with powers of dealing with petitions u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act. Learned DR has submitted that the assessee has come up in appeal without filing any such application before Learned CIT(A), CPC, Bangaluru, and as such, this appeal deserves to be dismissed, being not maintainable. At the same time, Ld. DR for the department has submitted that the appellant may move such an application before the competent authority so that prayer of the appellant for condonation of delay is dealt with in accordance with law. 6. Admittedly, as per circular dated 01.10.2024, in case of delay in verifying the return of income within prescribed time limit, CBDT has provided a remedy to the assessee, and also vested CIT, CPC, Bangaluru with powers for acceptance/rejection of petition u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act, in dealing with suchlike applications. 7. Admittedly, this is a case where e filing of the return by the assessee was verified after a delay of one day. In the situation, in view of the circular dated 01.10.2024. the assessee could and should have moved appropriate application before Learned CIT, CPC, Bengaluru. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 880/JPR/2025 Nitin Kasliwal, jaipur. 8. It is well settled that tax is to be levied in accordance with law. When a remedy has already been provided to such an assessee, as noticed above, and Learned CIT(A), CPC, Bangaluru has been vested with powers u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act, in the interest of justice, we deem it a fit case to allow the assessee to file appropriate application before the competent authority, as per said circular. Result 9. In view of the above discussion, this appeal is disposed of, for statistical purpose, while granting liberty to the assessee to file appropriate application before Learned CIT, CPC, Bangluru, seeking condonation of delay which crept in verifying the return of income for the Assessment Year under consideration. File be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Order pronounced in the open court on 24/09/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼xxu xks;y½ ¼ujsUnz dqekj½ (GAGAN GOYAL) (NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 24/09/2025 *Santosh vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 880/JPR/2025 Nitin Kasliwal, jaipur. 1. The Appellant- Nitin Kasliwal, Jaipur. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-1(1), Jaipur. 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ Theld CIT 4. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File ITA No. 880/JPR/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asstt. Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "