9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 1063X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s bad in law as the requirement of filing of form 10 IE before the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) is directory in nature and as such the benefit of lower tax rate cannot be denied. 4. That the order passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, is bad in law as since the adoption of lower tax rate as per section 115BAC cannot be brought under the ambit of adjustment u/s 143(1) which covers 'arithmetical error, incorrect claim, disallowance of loss, disallowance of expenditure, disallowance of deduction or addition of income appearing in form 26AS or form 16A'. 5. Without prejudice to the aforesaid grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that even if the benefit of lower tax rate as per section 115BAC is denied to the assessee, then, in such a case, the assessee is entitled to avail deduction under chapter VI-A of the income tax act 1961. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not accepting the form 10 IE and revised return filed on 25.03.2022 without considering the fact that it was filed before the processing of original return i.e on 26.05.2022. 7. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is heard and dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or all the three years under consideration were duly supported by an affidavit filed by the assessee as well as the medical certificates and since the contents of the same were sufficient to show that the assessee had acted bonafide under the advice from his consultants and there was no negligence nor any deliberate or intentional act on his part to delay in filing of appeals, we are of the view that there was a sufficient cause for the delay on the part of the assessee in filing the appeals before the Id. CIT(Appeals) for all the three years under consideration. We, therefore, condone the said delay and remit the matter back to the Id. CIT(Appeals) for disposing of the appeals of the assessee for all the three years under consideration on merit in accordance with law after giving proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. The said view was further affirmed in the case of Midas Polymer Compounds Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT, ITA 288/Coch/2017 in which there was a delay of 2819 days and the same was condoned on the ground of inadvertence of the CA. The relevant text is re-produced as under: - 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. There was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk. (6) It must be grasped that the judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. I.T.A. No.288/C/2017 6.2 When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have vested right for injustice being done because of nondeliberate delay. In the case on our hand, the issue on merit regarding allowability of deduction u/s. 8018 of the Act was covered in favour of the assessee by the binding Judgment of the jurisdictional High Court. Moreover, no counter-affidavit was filed by the Revenue denying the allegation made by the assessee. It is not the case of the Revenue that the appeal was not filed deliberately. Therefore, we have to prefer substantial justice rather than technicality in deciding the issue. As observed by Apex Court, if the application of the assessee for condoning the delay is rejected, it would amount to legalise injustice on technical ground when the Tribunal is capable of removing in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remit back the issue to the Id. CIT(A) and direct to pass the order on merits, denovo. Needless to say, the assessee should get a reasonable opportunity of hearing in set-aside proceeding. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No. 57/Asr/2021 is allowed for statistical purposes. Hence, keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances, your goodself is very kindly requested to condone the delay in filing of appeal. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, 4. We have considered the reasons for delay in filing the appeal and we find that the delay should be condoned keeping in view the issue discussed in the letter. 5. The ld. DR had no objection to the condonation of delay. 6. Brief facts of the case as per the order of the Addl. CIT(A) is as under:- "The appellant is an individual and has filed its return of income for A.Y. 2021-22 on 25/03/2022 (revised return) showing taxable income of Rs. 12,65,180/-. The Assessing Officer vide order u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the Act dated 28.10.2022 and raised the disputed demand of Rs. 3,770/- The appellant is in appeal against the said order." 7. During the course of hearing before us, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of difficulties reported by the taxpayers and other stakeholders due to COVID and in electronic filing of various reports of audit under the provisions of the Income-tax Act,1961 (Act), the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), in exercise of its powers under Section 119 of the Act, provides relaxation in respect of the following compliances: 4. The due date of furnishing of Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2021-22, which was 31st October 2021 under sub-section (1) of section 139 of the Act, as extended to 30th November 2021 and 15th February 2022 bv Circular No.9/2021 dated 20-5-2021 and Circular No.17/2021 dated 9-9-2021 respectively, is hereby further extended to 15th March, 2022 4. That immediately when the technical glitch regarding the portal was resolved and utility for filing FORM 10IE got started working, assessee acted responsibly and filed the Form 10IE along with revised ITR on 25.03.2022 Copy of Form 10-IE is enclosed at page No. 16-17 of paper book. Therefore, there was no delay in uploading the form as it was beyond the control of the assessee to file the same on or before 15.03.2022. Thus the technical glitch would seriously prejudice the rights of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rn under Section 139(5). 5.4 That Revised Return can be filed before the fast date of filing the return (upto end of Assessment Year) or before the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier. 5.5 Your Honor will appreciate that the appellant had filed a valid revised return and the same could not have been ignored by the CPC. 5.6 That it was found that Form No. 10IE was available with the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) at the time of processing the return. The existence of Form No. 10IE with tine CPC clearly indicates the appellant's intention to opt for the New Tax Regime. That the /submission of Form No. 10IE is directory in nature and not a mandatory requirement. The non-mandatory nature implies that as long as the form is available and the intention to opt for the New Tax Regime is clear, the benefit should not be denied on technical grounds. 6. Furthermore, it is also not the case where no such FORM 10IE was filed by assessee. It is just a case in which FORM 10IE was filed by assessee, which was belated only by ten days (25.03.2022) due to the reason beyond the control of the assessee of technical glitch on web portal. It is also to be noted here that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the minor technical lapse cannot disentitle the assessee from substantial benefit. It is a matter of record that form 10IE was available with CPC at the time of processing return u/s 143(1). Further, filing of form 10IE is directory and not mandatory. In this regard your kind attention is drawn towards the following case of - "ITAT PUNE AKSHAY DEVENDRA BIRARI VERSUS PCIT. CPC. BENGALURU. 2024 (6) TMI 272" where it was held that that the Form No. 10-IE was available with the CPC at the time of processing the return, and it was not a mandatory requirement but directory in nature. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the CPC to consider the Form No. 10-IE and allow the benefit of the New Tax Regime. (a) [2024] 165 taxmann.com 146 (Amritsar - Trib.) IN THE ITAT AMRITSAR BENCH Singh v. A.O. Section 115BAC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income of individuals and Hindu Undivided Family - Tax on total income (Option for new tax regime) - Assessment year 2021-22 - Assessee-individual filed return claiming deduction under Chapter VI-A under old scheme - Subsequently, assessee filed revised return, wherein assessee opted for new scheme of taxation under section 115BAC and also submitted F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
