SUNITA RANI,BALLABGARH V. CPC, BENGALARU

ITA 5696/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case revolves around an appeal by Sunita Rani against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai, which arose from an intimation under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued by the CPC. The intimation was based on the incorrect filing of Form 10E by the assessee's staff, despite her explicit choice to remain under the old tax regime, as declared in her tax audit report. The Tribunal considered the procedural lapses and the lack of remedy available to the assessee to correct the mistake, ultimately deciding in favor of the assessee by allowing her to opt for the old tax scheme.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 23735 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2022-2023
• Other Referred Cases: DCIT vs. Oceanic Trade Minerals Pvt. Ltd., Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, Kolkata
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: JITENDER WADHWA
• Section: 143(1)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.5696/Del/2024 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2022-23) Sunita Rani, H. No. 257, Sector-3 Haryana-121004 PAN-AYKPD4423G Vs. CPC, Bengalaru (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Jitender Wadhwa, CA Department by Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 20/02/2025 Date of Pronouncement 21/03/2025 O R D E R PER MADHUMITA ROY, JM: The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 23/10/24 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai arising out of the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) issued by CPC dated 16.03.2023 for Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. The assessee, an individual, files her return of income for Assessment Year 2022-23 as per old scheme on 5.11.2022 declaring total income at Rs.21,76,560/-. However, the staff of the assessee inadvertently filed form 10E despite the fact that the assessee never utilized or intended to utilize this form. However, the income of the 2 ITA No.5696/Del/2024 Sunita Rani vs. CPC assessee was assessed under the new scheme followed by demand raised of Rs.6661920/-. The assessee filed tax and audit report on 30.09.2022 where she has declined the option for opting the new tax regime and the supportive documents is also filed before the Bench. Before the appellate authority though the same was brought to the notice, the appeal stood rejected. It is submitted by the assessee’s counsel that once the Form is filed, there is no option to cancel or withdraw the same neither any remedy was available with the assessee to correct the said mistake. The occurrence of communication gap can be deemed as a procedural laps. However, it is imperative to recognize that such a laps should not unjustly deprive the assessee of significant benefit to which the assessee is entitled. He therefore, prayed for a direction upon the CPC to allow the assesse to opt for the old scheme and, thus, the Form 10(ICE) is, thus, deemed to be withdrawn. He further relied upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Mumbai Bench where it has been observed that further requirement of filing Form 10IE is directory in nature and not mandatory and it is sufficient compliance if the said Form is filed/available before the Assessing Officer at the time of assessment. He relied upon the decision of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of DCIT vs. Oceanic Trade Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vide ITA No.5255/Mum/2024. He has further relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ld. Vs. CIT, Kolkata where it has been held that ‘if the assessee had committed inadvertent and bonafide error and had not intended to or attempted to conceal its 3 ITA No.5696/Del/2024 Sunita Rani vs. CPC income or furnish inaccurate particulars then there will be no addition or penalty on such case. 3. The Ld. DR on the other hand relied upon the orders passed by the authorities below. 4. Having heard the Ld. Counsels appearing for the parties and having regard to the facts of the circumstances of the matter, it appears that the assessee in her tax audit report dated 30.09.2022 declined to opt the new tax regime and, thus, filing Form 10IE is found to be inadvertent error on the part of the assessee or her staff for which no addition is called for particularly when the assessee does not have any option to rectify such an error already committed. Thus, having regard to this particular aspect of the matter, the order passed by the CPC further confirmed by the CIT(A), Mumbai is liable to be quashed. The CPC is directed to consider the return filed by the assessee under the old scheme and to assess her income. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 21/3/2025. Sd/- (MADHUMITA ROY) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 21/03/2025 PK/Sr. Ps 4 ITA No.5696/Del/2024 Sunita Rani vs. CPC Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI "