PANKAJ GOSWAMI,DELHI V. CENTRALISED PROCESSING CENTRE , BANGALORE

ITA 5941/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around the assessee, Sh. Pankaj Goswami, who appealed against the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which upheld the Centralized Processing Centre's (CPC) decision denying the benefit of taxation under the new regime as per section 115BAC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The denial was primarily due to the belated filing of Form 10-IE, which the assessee argued was due to bona fide technical difficulties. The Tribunal examined whether the procedural requirement of filing Form 10-IE within the due date under section 139(1) was mandatory and non-condonable, and whether such a procedural lapse should override substantive rights.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 786024 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2023-2024
• Appeal Filed On: 24-09-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Akshay Devendra Birari Vs. DCIT, Harbans Singh Vs. AO, Krishna Gopal Dwivedi HUF Vs. CPC
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANOJ KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: MALAV GOSWAMI
• Keywords: Procedural lapse

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.5941/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2023-24 Sh. Pankaj Goswami, C/o- M K Bhatt & Co., CAs, G-7, Preet Vihar, New Delhi Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1)(3), Noida PAN: AJJPG3419P (Appellant) (Respondent) ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2023-24, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl./JCIT(A), Ranchi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025- 26/1079020670(1), dated 29.07.2025 involving proceedings under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. This assessee’s appeal raises the following substantive grounds: Assessee by Sh. Malav Goswami, Adv. Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 29.10.2025 Date of pronouncement 29.10.2025 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.5941/Del/2025 2 | P a g e 1. That the learned Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of CPC in denying the benefit of taxation under the new regime as per section 1158AC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite due exercise of the option in Form 10-IE and fulfillment of all substantive conditions. 2. That the learned Addl./Jt. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the delay in filing Form 10-IE was caused by bona fide and reasonable technical difficulties beyond the control of the assessee, and that such procedural lapse should not defeat the substantive right to opt for taxation under section 115BAC. 3. That the learned Addl./Jt. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the requirement of filing Form 10-IE within the due date u/s 139(1) is mandatory and non-condonable, without appreciating the judicial precedents supporting the principle that procedural provisions should not override substantive rights, particularly when no malafide intent is established. 4. That the learned Addl./Jt. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the fact that the assessee had already made full payment of tax as per the new regime well within the original due date of filing the return under section 139(1), and had exercised the option under Form 10-IE prior to processing of the return under section 143(1), hence Form 10-IE was already on record before the return was processed, and therefore, denial of the benefit of section 115BAC amounts to arbitrary and unjustified action. 3. Suffice to say, there is hardly any dispute between the parties that both the learned lower authorities have declined the assessee’s claim seeking assessment under the new regime under section 115BAC of the Act for the sole reason that he had belatedly filed/uploaded the corresponding prescribed option in Form 10IE, in the Centralized Processing Centre’s processing dated 31.01.2024 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 4. This being the clinching factual position, the Revenue could hardly dispute that this tribunal’s recent decisions in Akshay Devendra Birari Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 782/Pun/2024, dated Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.5941/Del/2025 3 | P a g e 05.06.2024); Harbans Singh Vs. AO (ITA No.25/Asr/2024, dated 24.07.2024), Krishna Gopal Dwivedi HUF Vs. CPC (ITA Nos. 3482/Mum/2024 & 3452/Mum/2024, dated 27.01.2025) have already settled the issue that the foregoing compliance of filing/uploading Form 10IE is directory than a mandatory provision only. This tribunal finds merit in the assessee’s instant sole substantive ground in principle therefore and the learned Assessing Officer is directed to make necessary computation in very terms as per law. 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29th October, 2025 Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 29th October, 2025. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "