VAITIANADIN,PUDUCHERRY V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, PUDUCHERRY, PUDUCHERRY

ITA 2466/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around the assessee, Vaitianadin, who opted for the new taxation regime under section 115BAC of the Income-tax Act in his original return filed on 20.07.2023. The CPC, however, denied the concessional tax rate because Form 10-IE was filed after the due date, although it was submitted in response to a notice under section 139(9) of the Act. The assessee appealed to the Addl. CIT(A), but the decision was upheld. The Tribunal, referencing several precedents, ruled in favor of the assessee, emphasizing that the form's late submission should not preclude the concessional tax regime, especially since it was on record during the processing of the return.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 790717 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2023-2024
• Appeal Filed On: 05-09-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Vinayaka Murthy vs. ITO, Akshay Devendra Birar vs. DCIT, Harbans Singh v. A.O., CPC, Arun Kumar Sharma v. ITO
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M. SUBASHRI; VIRTUAL
• Assessee Lawyers: V.MEENAKSHI SUNDAR; C.A
• Keywords: Revised return

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ \u0011ा यपीठ, चे\u0016ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI \u0019ी यस यस िव ने रिव, \u0011ा ियक सद एवं \u0019ी जगदीश, लेखा सद क े सम' BEFORE SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2466/Chny/2025 िनधा 8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2023-24 Vaitianadin, No.2, Arunagiri Chetty Street, Muthialpet, Pondicherry – 605 003. PAN: ADAPV 2704M Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3 Puducherry. (अपीलाथ\u0007/Appellant) (\b यथ\u0007/Respondent) अपीला थE की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri V.Meenakshi Sundar, C.A GHथE की ओर से /Respondent by : Shri M.Subashri, Addl. CIT(virtual) सुनवा ई की ता रीख/Date of Hearing : 20.11.2025 घोषणा की ता रीख /Date of Pronouncement : 04.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2023-24 arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl./JCIT(A)-5, Mumbai [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 07.07.2025 vide intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) issued by Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred “CPC”) dated 14.12.2023. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2466/Chny/2023 Vaitianadin :- 2 -: 2. The CPC, in the intimation issued u/s. 143(1) of the Act, did not allow the taxation option opted by the assessee u/s. 115BAC of the Act on the ground that Form 10-IE had not been filed within the prescribed time. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. Addl. CIT(A). However, the Ld. Addl. CIT(A) also confirmed the order of the CPC. 3. The Ld. Authorized Representative (A.R.) submitted that the assessee had opted for the new taxation regime u/s. 115BAC of the Act in the original return of income filed on 20.07.2023, the due date for which was 31.07.2023. The CPC treated the return as defective u/s. 139(9) of the Act, and in response, the assessee filed a revised return on 03.08.2023 along with the prescribed Form 10-IE. However, while processing the return u/s. 143(1) on 14.12.2023, the CPC denied the benefit of the concessional tax rate on the ground that Form 10-IE was filed after the due date. 3.1 The Ld. A.R. further submitted that Form 10-IE was furnished in response to the notice issued u/s. 139(9) of the Act and was very much available at the time of processing the return. Therefore, CPC ought to have allowed the concessional rate of tax as opted in the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2466/Chny/2023 Vaitianadin :- 3 -: original return. The Ld. A.R. placed reliance on the decisions of the Tribunal in Vinayaka Murthy vs. ITO (ITA No. 232/Bang/2025, dated 26.08.2025 – Bangalore Bench), Akshay Devendra Birar vs. DCIT (ITA No. 782/Pun/2024, dated 05.06.2024 – Pune Bench), Harbans Singh v. A.O., CPC [2024] 165 taxmann.com 146 (Amritsar Bench), and Arun Kumar Sharma v. ITO [2025] 176 taxmann.com 927 (Delhi Bench), wherein it has been held that Form 10-IE is directory and not mandatory, and when the form is available on record at the time of processing, CPC cannot deny the benefit of the concessional tax regime. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (D.R.) relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessee, in the valid return of income filed within the prescribed due date, had opted for the concessional tax regime u/s. 115BAC of the Act. The CPC denied the benefit solely on the ground that Form 10-IE was filed on 03.08.2023, i.e., after the due date of 31.07.2023. The issue, however, is squarely covered by the decisions of the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal cited supra. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2466/Chny/2023 Vaitianadin :- 4 -: Respectfully following the said decisions, we direct the A.O. to allow the benefit of the concessional tax regime u/s. 115BAC of the Act. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 04th day of December, 2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (यस यस िव ने रिव) (SS Viswanethra Ravi) \u0001याियक \u0001याियक \u0001याियक \u0001याियक सद\bय सद\bय सद\bय सद\bय / Judicial Member (जगदीश) (Jagadish) लेखा लेखा लेखा लेखा सद\u0011य सद\u0011य सद\u0011य सद\u0011य /Accountant Member चे\u0013नई/Chennai, \u0016दनांक/Dated: 04th December, 2025. EDN, Sr. P.S आदेश क\u0019 \bितिल प अ े षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ\u0007/Appellant 2. \b थ\u0007/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु\u000f/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय \bितिनिध/DR 5. गाड\u0018 फाईल/GF Printed from counselvise.com "