THE VIJAY N DHARAMSHI HUF ,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 20(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 969/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves The Vijay N Dharamshi HUF appealing against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Mumbai, which upheld the decision of the deputy director of Income Tax, CPC Bengaluru. The primary contention was the denial of deduction under chapter VI-A and the application of tax rates as per the old tax regime despite the assessee opting for the new tax regime in the revised return. The Tribunal examined whether the filing of Form No. 10IE was a mandatory requirement for opting into the new tax regime and found it to be directory, thus allowing the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 126364 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2022-2023
• Other Referred Cases: Pran Panda Vs. ITO, Akshay Devendra Birari Vs. DCIT, Ranganathan Anantharaman Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Ax, Harbans Singh Vs. Income Tax Officer
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KAVITHA KAUSHIK
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHOK SHARMA
• Keywords: Revised return; Grounds of appeal; Dismissed; Chapter VI-A; Commissioner; Due date of filing; Amritsar
• Section: 250; 143(1); 139(5)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.969/MUM/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2022-23) The Vijay N Dharamshi HUF 81st Floor, Pramod Prashad, R A Kidwai Road Wadala, Mumbai 400031 v/s. बिधम Income Tax Officer Ward 20(3)(1), Mumbai Income Tax Office, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Mumbai 400012 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AACHV3818B Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee by: Shri. Ashok Sharma रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (SR DR) सुिवधई की िधरीख / Date of Hearing 03.04.2025 घोर्णध की िधरीख/Date of Pronouncement 21.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :- This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 15/02/2023 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2022-23. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, learned Addl/JCIT Appeal erred in upholding the action of the deputy director of Income Tax, CPC Bengaluru in not allowing deduction under chapter P a g e | 2 ITA No969/MUM/2025 A.Y. 2022-23. The Vijay Dharamshi HUF, Mumbai VIA though tax has been charged under old regime in that concessional rate under new regime was denied. 2. The Appellant craves, leave to add, alter or modify Ground of Appeal before or at the time of hearing of appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed is original return on 27/06/2022 declaring income of Rs. 1,20,51,280/- under the old tax regime. Subsequently, he filed a revised return on 03/08/2022 declaring a total income of Rs. 1,22,11,280/- under the new tax regime. Form No. 10IE was also filed on 03/08/2022 along with the revised return of income. Vide intimation dated 15/02/2023, the income was assessed at Rs.1,22,11,280/- (as per revised return), but no deduction u/c VI A of Rs.1,60,000/- was given and tax rates were applied as per the old tax regime. Aggrieved with the intimation received from CPC, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Vide order dated 31/12/2024 Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal with the following observations: “7.1 The impugned order alongwith the submission of the appellant has been perused. It is found that the appellant has filed original return of income within due date wherein the appellant claimed deduction under chapter VI-A amounting to Rs.1,60,000/-. Further, a revised return was filed by the appellant. In the revised return the appellant did not claim any deduction under chapter VI-A of the Act. In the return of income, the appellant opted for new tax regime and filed Form 10IE on 03/08/2022. As the original return was filed on time, the revised return was accepted as per the provision of section 139(5) of the Act and taken up for processing u/s.143(1) of the Act. In the revised return the appellant did not claim any deduction under chapter VI-A and therefore, the appellant cannot be allowed the same as it had not claimed in the revised return. Further, with respect to the denial of the appellant claim of new tax regime, the AO has correctly not allowed the option of the new tax regime as the appellant failed to file Form 101E before the due date of filing of return of income. In view of the above, I did not find any infirmity nfirmity in the impugned order u/s. 143(1) and hence, the ground of appeal is dismissed”. P a g e | 3 ITA No969/MUM/2025 A.Y. 2022-23. The Vijay Dharamshi HUF, Mumbai Aggrieved with the above order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, Ld. AR has submitted that the requirement of filing Form No. 10IE was directory and not mandatory as has been held in various decisions by the co-ordinate benches. It has been claimed that the form had been filed along with the revised return of income and at the time of processing the figure of income had been taken from the revised return but, the Form 10IE filed alongwith it has been ignored by the CPC. It has been argued by the Ld.AR that in view of the decision of coordinate benches the assessee deserves to get the benefit of the new tax regime. Ld. DR on the other hand as vehemently argued that since Form No. 10IE was not filed by the due date specified in section 115 BAC(5), benefit of the new tax regime cannot be given to him. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. This issue has come up for consideration before various coordinates benches and it has been consistently held that the requirement of filing Form No. 10IE was directory and not mandatory. Some of the cases relied upon by the assessee are as under: “1. Pran Panda Vs. ITO in ITA No. 1509 & 1510/KOL/2024 (Kolkata Bench) 2. Akshay Devendra Birari Vs. DCIT in ITA No. 782/PUN/2024 (Pune Bench) 3. Ranganathan Anantharaman Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Ax (DCIT), NCC-4 Coimbatore in ITA No. 1558/CHNY/2024 (Chennai Bench) P a g e | 4 ITA No969/MUM/2025 A.Y. 2022-23. The Vijay Dharamshi HUF, Mumbai 4. Harbans Singh Vs. Income Tax Officer (ITO) in ITA No. 25/Asr/2024 (Amritsar bench).” Specifically, in the case of Akshay Devendra Birari Vs. DCIT, the coordinate bench under similar circumstances as held as under: “7. The Ground No. 1 raised by the appellant is related to disallowance of deduction under chapter VI-A amounting to Rs.1,60,000/-. The appellant submitted that in the order u/s.143(1), the appellant request for opting at new tax regime was not accepted and tax liability on total income was calculated as per the old tax regime. As the appellant contention is that if the appellant claim of opting of new tax regime while filing revised return was not accepted, then, it should be allowed for deduction under chapter VI-A amounting to Rs.1,60,000/- while filing original return of income.” 6. In the present case also, the assessee had filed the prescribed Form 10IE along with the revised return of income and the same was very much available on record before the return was processed by the CPC. In fact, the CPC has taken the figure of income from this revised return income only. Respectfully following the above decisions of the coordinate bench wherein it has been held that the filing of Form No. 10IE is not a mandatory requirement but is directory in nature, we hold that the CPC ought to have considered the assessee’s claim in the light of Form No. 10IE filed along with revised return. We accordingly direct the CPC to take into consideration the Form No. 10IE and issue revised intimation after computing tax under the new regime. P a g e | 5 ITA No969/MUM/2025 A.Y. 2022-23. The Vijay Dharamshi HUF, Mumbai 7. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 21.04.2025. Sd/- Sd/- BEENA PILLAI RENU JAUHRI (न्यधनयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER) (लेखधकधर सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Place: म ुंबई/Mumbai दिन ुंक /Date 21..04.2025 दिव्य रमेश न ुंिग वकर/ स्टेनो आदेश की प्रनतनलनि अग्रेनित/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 4. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. सत्यानित प्रनत //True Copy// आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER, सहायक िंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अिीलीय अनर्करण/ ITAT, Bench, Mumbai. "