VINAYAK BHALCHANDRA RANDIVE,THANE V. ITO WARD 3(4) THANE, THANE

ITA 3005/MUM/2025

AI Insights

Vinayak Bhalchandra Randive appealed against the orders of the CIT(A) for the assessment years 2021-22 and 2022-23, which confirmed the adjustments made in the intimation dated 28.10.2022. The primary issues revolved around the non-allowance of deductions under sections 80CCD, 80D, and 80TTA, and the credit of self-assessment tax, as well as the restricted TDS credit. The assessee argued that the return was filed within the extended due date due to the COVID-19 pandemic and should be considered under the new regime as per section 115BAC, despite being processed under the old regime. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments, referencing the decision in CIT Vs Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd., and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for re-evaluation under the correct provisions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 706173 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2022-2023
• Other Referred Cases: CIT Vs Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 349 ITR 336 (Bombay)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R.M. BRINDHA
• Assessee Lawyers: TANMAY PHADKE
• Keywords: Depreciation; TDS; FORM 26AS

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 2991 & 3005/MUM/2025 (AY: 2021-22 to 2022-23) (Physical hearing) VinayakBhalchandraRandive B/67/301, Muchkund SOC, Vasant Vihar, Pokhran Road, Thane, Maharashtra- 400610. [PAN No. AANPR4529E] Vs ITO - 41(3)(4) Thane, Maharashtra Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Sh. Tanmay Phadke, Advocate Revenue by Smt. R.M. Brindha, Addl. JCIT Date of hearing 30.06.2025 Date of pronouncement 30.06.2025 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. These two appeals by assessee are directed against the orders of ld. CIT(A) dated 20.03.2025 and 25.05.2025 for A.Y. 2021-22 and 2022-23 respectively. In both the appeals, the assessee has raised certain common grounds of appeal, certain facts in both the years are common. Thus, with the consent of both the parties, both the appeals were clubbed, heard together and are decided by common order to avoid the conflicting decision. For appreciation of facts, appeal for A.Y. 2021-22 in ITA No. 2991/Mum/2025 is treated as lead case. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per the law, the National Faceless Appeal Centre/Commissioners of Income Tax (Appeals) {“the learned Commissioner (appeals)] erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant and confirming the adjustments made in the intimation dated 28.10.2022. Thus, the impugned order of the learned commissioner (appeals) may be reversed and the tax demand of Rs. 1,74,764/- may be deleted. ITA Nos. 2991 & 3005/Mum/2025 Vinayak Bhalchandra Randive 2 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per the law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not allowing deductions of Rs. 50,000/- under section 80CCD, Rs. 25,000/- under section 80D and Rs. 10,000/- under section 80TTA of the Act despite observing that the tax was computed under the old regime. Thus, the aforesaid Chapter VIA deductions aggregating to Rs. 85,000/- may be allowed. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per the law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not allowing the credit of self- assessment tax of Rs. 47,580/-. Thus, it may be granted. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per the law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in restricting the TDS credit to Rs. 75,631/- instead of granting the credit of Rs. 80,791/-. Thus, the TDS credit of Rs. 5,160/- may be granted.” 2. Rival submissions of both the parties have heard and record perused. The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that assessee is regularly filing his return of income. For the year under consideration, the assessee opted for new regime of income tax for the purpose of tax rate prescribed under section 115BAC. As per scheme of section 115BAC, the assessee is require to file return of income within due date under section 139(1) of the Act. The extended due date for filing return of income for A.Y. 2021-22 was extended upto 30.12.2021 because of Covid Pandemic period. The assessee filed his return of income on 13.03.2022. The condition for availing benefit of section 115BAC is that return must be filed within due date of filing return of income as per section 139(1) and assessee should not claimed any deductions, exemptions or set off of any loss or depreciation. As the return was filed beyond due date, Central Processing Centre (CPC) not allowed the claim under section 115BAC and treated the return under old regime. Despite considering the return of assessee under old regime, benefit of Chapter VIA aggregating to Rs. 85,000/- was not ITA Nos. 2991 & 3005/Mum/2025 Vinayak Bhalchandra Randive 3 allowed to the assessee. In the intimation, the benefit of self-assessment tax was also not allowed. Self-assessment tax is reflected in Form 26AS. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that he has a limited prayer before this bench to restore the appeal back to the ld. CIT(A) to allow benefit of Chapter VIA. The assessee in the statement of fact before ld. CIT(A) as well as in its submission filed on 23.01.2025 requested to allow benefit of Chapter VIA, which consists of NPS contribution under section 80CCD to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-, Medical Insurance under section 80D to the extent of Rs. 25,000/- and Savings Bank Interest up to Rs. 10,000/-, thus aggregating to Rs. 85,000/- and credit of self-assessment tax of Rs. 47,580/- upto on 13.03.2022. The ld. CIT(A) not allowed such benefit to the assessee by taking view that assessee has opted for benefit of section 115BAC and claim of Chapter VIA is not available in such scheme. It was also held that assessee filed belated return, therefore, benefit of section 115BAC is also not admissible. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that he has filed return of income within the extended period of 139(4). The ld. AR of the assessee further, invited our attention to section 80AC and would submits that restriction for availing benefit of Chapter VIA as per section 80AC is only with regard to Part ‘C of Chapter VIA’ and not with regard to Part A and Part B of Chapter VIA. The assessee is claiming deduction under old regime with regard to Part A and Part B of Chapter VIA. 3. On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue supported the order of ld. CIT(A). The ld. Sr. DR submits that assessee has not filed return of income within time period prescribed under ITA Nos. 2991 & 3005/Mum/2025 Vinayak Bhalchandra Randive 4 section 139(1), which is a pre-condition for availing benefit of section 115BAC. 4. I have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. There is not dispute that assessee filed return of income on 13.03.2022. The due date for filing return of income under section 139(1) for A.Y. 2021-22 was upto 30.12.2021. The assessee while filing return of income opted for seeking benefit of section 115BAC. Admittedly, the assessee has filed return belatedly so the claim of assessee was not accepted. I find that the return of assessee was treated under old regime and processed the return of income without allowing any benefit of Chapter VIA. Before ld. CIT(A), the assessee raised similar plea as ld. AR of the assessee explained before me. All such facts are recorded by ld. CIT(A) in his order. The ld. CIT(A) not accepted the claim of assessee under section 115BAC on the ground that assessee filed return of income beyond due date prescribed under section 139(1). I find that assessee has filed return within extended time period prescribed under section 139(4). Thus, being appellate authority, I accept the addition scheme of assessee as per the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 349 ITR 336 (Bombay). Since the restriction prescribed under Chapter VIA is restricted to deduction of Part C of Chapter VIA, therefore, I deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of Jurisdictional Assessing officer (JAO) with direction to treat the return of income under section 113(4) and allow admissible deduction which is allowable under Para A and Part B of Chapter VIA in accordance with law. ITA Nos. 2991 & 3005/Mum/2025 Vinayak Bhalchandra Randive 5 The assessing officer is also directed to allow the credit of tax already paid to the assessee. Needless to direct that before passing the order to allow reasonable and fair opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to provide all necessary details to the assessing officer. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 5. As recorded above, the assessee has raised similar grounds of appeal as raised in appeal for A.Y. 2021-22 which I have restored back to the assessing officer, therefore, another appeal is restored back to the assessing officer with similar direction. In the result, this appeal is also allowed for statistical purpose. 6. In the result, both the appeals of the assesseeareallowed for statistical purpose. Order was pronounced in the open Court on 30/06/2025. Sd/- PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, Dated: 30/06/2025 Biswajit Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; and (5) Guard file. By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai "