YOGESH MATHUR, DURG,DURG V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), BHILAI, DURG

ITA 493/RPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Yogesh Mathur, who appealed against the decision of the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bhilai, regarding the assessment year 2022-23. The primary issue was the applicability of the New Tax Regime to the assessee, who filed a revised return opting for the New Tax Regime after the due date for the assessment year. The CIT(Appeals)/NFAC dismissed the appeal, leading to the current appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the assessee's revised return was not filed within the prescribed due date, and thus, according to section 115BAC(5) of the Income Tax Act, the New Tax Regime could not be applied.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 773641 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2022-2023
• Appeal Filed On: 25-08-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Akshay Devendra Birari Vs. DCIT, CPC, ITA No.782/PUN/2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYANKA PATEL
• Assessee Lawyers: YOGESH SETHIA
• Keywords: Revised return
• Section: 139

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण Ûयायपीठ “एक-सदèय” मामला रायपुर मɅ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR Įी पाथ[ सारथी चौधरȣ, ÛयाǓयक सदèय क े सम¢ BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.493/RPR/2025 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ /Assessment Year : 2022-23 Shri Yogesh Mathur MIG-694, Behind Pandit Medical, Padmanabhpur, Durg-491 001 (C.G.) PAN: ADRPM8822E .......अपीलाथȸ / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Yogesh Sethia, CA Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 08.09.2025 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 08.09.2025 Printed from counselvise.com 2 Shri Yogesh Mathur Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bhilai ITA No.493/RPR/2025 आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, dated 11.08.2025 for the assessment year 2022-23 as per the grounds of appeal on record. 2. The brief facts in this case are that the assessee filed the original return of income for A.Y.2022-23 on 13.07.2022 u/s.139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) opting for Old Tax Regime. Further, the assessee furnished a revised return u/s.139(5) of the Act, dated 05.08.2022 after the due date for filing return u/s.139(1) of the Act opting for New Tax Regime. The sub-section (5) of Section 115BAC of the Act states that nothing contained in the section 115BAC shall be applicable if the return of income along with the option is not exercised within the due date prescribed u/s.139(1) of the Act. It would be pertinent to extract Section 115BAC and the corresponding sub-section (5) of the Act which reads as follows: “Following section 115BAC shall be inserted by the Finance Act, 2020, w.e.f 1-4-2021: Tax on income of individuals and Hindu undivided family. 115BAC(5) Nothing contained in this section shall apply unless option is exercised in the prescribed manner by the person,- Printed from counselvise.com 3 Shri Yogesh Mathur Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bhilai ITA No.493/RPR/2025 (i) having income from business or profession, on or before the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139 for furnishing the returns of income for any previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 2021 and such option once exercised shall apply to subsequent assessment years; (ii) having income other than the income referred to in clause (i), alongwith the return of income to be furnished under sub-section (1) of section 139 for a previous year relevant to the assessment year: Provided that the option under clause (i), once exercised for any previous year can be withdrawn only once for a previous year other than the year in which it was exercised and thereafter, the person shall never be eligible to exercise option under this section, except where such person ceases to have any income from business or profession in which case, option under clause (ii) shall be available.\" 3. It was rightly observed by the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC that in the case of the assessee the date prescribed for exercising the option u/s. 139(1) of the Act was 31.07.2022. Therefore, the A.O while considering the return filed u/s.139(5) of the Act, dated 05.08.2022 had calculated taxes according to the old tax regime because nothing contained in the Section 115BAC will apply since the returned was not furnished within the due date specified u/s.139(1) of the Act i.e. 31.07.2022 in the case of the assessee. Hence, the appeal was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. 4. I have carefully considered the facts and circumstances and heard the submission of the parties. Admittedly, as the facts emanating in the foregoing paras, which are conceded by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee as well as by the Ld. Sr. DR, therefore, it is an admitted fact that the Printed from counselvise.com 4 Shri Yogesh Mathur Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bhilai ITA No.493/RPR/2025 assessee had furnished revised return u/s.139 (5) of the Act, dated 05.08.2022 after due date for filing return u/s. 139(1) of the Act opting for New Tax Regime. That since the due date for exercising the option in the case of the assessee was 31.07.2022, and since revised return was filed on 05.08.2022, the option for New Tax Regime as exercised by the assessee was not accounted for by the A.O/CPC. That going as per the provisions of the Act, specifically Section 115BAC and sub-section (5) of the Act, the action of the A.O/CPC stands correct. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee though principally admitted these facts, however, relied on a decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Pune in the case of Akshay Devendra Birari Vs. DCIT, CPC, ITA No.782/PUN/2024, dated 05.06.2024. However, since the mandate of the legal provision has not been complied with by the assessee and for the fact that in case of the fiscal statutes, the provision has to be interpreted in its strictest form, therefore, the case law relied on by the Ld. Counsel shall not come to the rescue of the assessee. The said decision cannot override the provisions of the Act. That it has been spelled out through various decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court that there cannot be any liberal interpretation in respect of fiscal statutes and the provisions of the Act has to be strictly complied with. Considering the totality of the facts, I do Printed from counselvise.com 5 Shri Yogesh Mathur Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bhilai ITA No.493/RPR/2025 not find any infirmity with the findings of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC which is hereby upheld. 6. As per the above terms grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 08th day of September, 2025. Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) ÛयाǓयक सदèय/JUDICIAL MEMBER रायपुर / Raipur; Ǒदनांक / Dated : 08th September, 2025. SB, Sr. PS आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant. 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, “एक-सदèय” बɅच, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Raipur. 5. गाड[ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur Printed from counselvise.com "