9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 535X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find that the original return of income is within time u/s 139(1) filed on a returned income which was subsequently revised u/s 139(5), at a higher figure which is the finally assessed figure u/s 143(1) dated 28/10/2022, meaning thereby, the revised return has been considered and accepted by CPC, ignoring the claim of the assessee in Form 10-IE, which was also on record before the AO, on the date of assessment. We find that an identical issue has been decided in the case of Akshay Devendra Birari [ 2024 (6) TMI 272 - ITAT PUNE] where as held on the facts case that filing of Form 10-IE is not a mandatory requiredment but only directory in nature and CPC ought to have considered the same allowing the benefit of new tax regime. One of the requ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... BER AND SH. UDAYAN DAS GUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant : Sh. Rohit Kapoor, CA and Sh. V.S. Aggarwal, ITP. For the Respondent : Sh. Ravinder Mittal, Sr. DR ORDER Per: Udayan Das Gupta, JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. JCIT (A) 8, Mumbai, dated 19/12/2023, passed u/s 250 of the Act 61, which has emanated from the order of the CPC, Bangalore passed u/s 143(1) dated 28/10/2022. 2. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are as follows: 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) vide order u/s 250(6) dated 19.12.2023 has erred in confirming the action of the AO in not providing the benefit of lower tax as per section 115BAC due to the fact that form 10IE was not filed before the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1). i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act 61, under old scheme, which was subsequently REVISED on 24th March, 2022, disclosing a returned income of Rs. 16,91,220/-, wherein the assessee opted for the new scheme of taxation u/s 115BAC and has also submitted Form 10-IE (as per Rule 21AG (1)), on the same date of revised return. 4. The assessment was completed by CPC, Bangalore u/s 143(1) of the Act 61, on 28th October, 2022, on the income disclosed in the REVISED return, but without allowing the benefit of tax rate prescribed under the new scheme of taxation, on the ground that Form 10-IE, has not been filed within the time allowed u/s 139(1) ( i.e. within the extended time frame of 15th March, 2022 ). 5. The matter was carried in first appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in order to opt for the new scheme of taxation u/s 115BAC is directory or mandatory , and secondly , if the said option is not allowable to the assessee, in the instant case , whether it is incumbent on the part of the AO to allow the claim for deduction under Chapter VIA, as claimed in the original return. 7. The Ld. AR submitted that there has been a technical glitch in the income tax filing portal during the period September 2021, resulting in repeated extension of time by the CBDT vide circular numbers 09/2021, 17/2021 and again vide circular no 01/2022 dated 15/03/2022, and ultimately the due date was extended till 15th March, 2022. 8. He submitted that the original return was filed within the extended time allowed u/s 139(1) of the Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled a written submission stating that firstly the contention of the assessee regarding technical glitches in the portal is not acceptable because the assessee has managed to file the original return within due time through the same portal and secondly the revised return u/s 139(5) is only to take care of any omission or wrong statement and not for the purpose of section 115BAC of the Act 61, and he prays for sustaining the first appellate order. 10. We have heard the submissions of both the counsels and considered all the materials on record. The main issue to be decided is whether the filing of Form 10- IE within the time frame of section 139(1) of the Act 61, as per provisions of section 115BAC, is mandatory or directory in nature. 10.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y in nature , because Rule 128(9) does not provide for disallowance of FTC in case of delay in filing Form 67. Similar view has been taken in the case of Ms Brinda Kumar Krishna (2022 (2) TMI 752- ITAT Bangalore, for the purpose of Form 67 rwr 128 relating to FTC. 10.4 We also consider the decision of the ITAT , Ahmedabad Bench, in the case of ITO ( E ) vs Ramji Mandir Religious and Charitable Trust, (2024)158 taxman .com 114 ( Ahmedabad ), where in the matter of filing of Form 10/10B which is required to be furnished before due date u/s 139(1) of the Act, the tribunal held the same to be merely directory in nature and opined that the same cannot be so fatal so as to deny exemption u/s 11(2) specially when the said Form - 10/10B was availab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
