Amit Arora Vs ITO (ITAT Amritsar)
Summary: The Amritsar Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2021-22 concerning denial of the concessional tax regime under section 115BAC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 merely because Form No. 10-IE was filed nine days after the prescribed due date. The assessee had originally filed the return under the old tax regime and claimed deductions under Chapter VI-A. Subsequently, he opted for taxation under section 115BAC and filed a revised return. The applicable compliance date stood extended to 15.03.2022, whereas Form No. 10-IE was furnished on 24.03.2022. According to the assessee, the short delay occurred because of technical glitches and difficulties in the income-tax e-filing portal, and the prescribed form was filed as soon as the relevant utility became functional. The assessee also relied upon CBDT circulars recognising electronic-filing difficulties and extending statutory timelines.
While processing the return under section 143(1), the CPC denied the benefit of the lower tax rate under section 115BAC because Form No. 10-IE had not been furnished within the prescribed time. The CIT(A) confirmed the CPC’s action and held that for AY 2021-22 the assessee was required to exercise the option by filing the prescribed form within the stipulated period. Before the Tribunal, the assessee argued that there had been substantial compliance, the delay was merely nine days, the form and revised return were ultimately available with the Department, and a minor procedural delay attributable to technical difficulties should not defeat the substantive benefit. The Revenue supported the orders of the lower authorities, although it could not effectively controvert the assessee’s factual submission regarding technical glitches in the e-filing portal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee’s intention to opt for section 115BAC was undisputed, Form No. 10-IE had actually been furnished, the revised return also opted for the new regime, and the delay was approximately nine days. It observed that the statutory requirement was not being diluted, but the default had to be considered in the factual circumstances in which it occurred. There was no complete failure to furnish the prescribed form or abandonment of the option. The Tribunal also took note of the fact that the CBDT itself had issued successive circulars recognising difficulties in electronic filing and extending statutory timelines.
The Tribunal found the matter squarely covered by the coordinate Bench decision in Ravi Kant Luthra v. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru, ITA No. 444/Asr/2024, AY 2021-22, order dated 27.11.2025. In that case too, Form No. 10-IE had been filed on 24.03.2022 against the due date of 15.03.2022 and the nine-day delay was attributed to technical glitches. The coordinate Bench had directed the Assessing Officer to take cognizance of the belated form for allowing the benefit of section 115BAC. Concurring with that reasoning, the Tribunal held that where the assessee actually exercised the option and furnished the prescribed form, a nine-day delay caused in circumstances involving technical difficulties constituted a minor procedural lapse rather than a complete failure to comply with a statutory condition.
The Tribunal further found that the Revenue had produced no material to show that the assessee deliberately withheld Form No. 10-IE or subsequently filed it to obtain an impermissible advantage. The explanation remained consistent throughout the proceedings. It therefore held that such a venial and technical delay could not defeat substantial justice or deprive the assessee altogether of the substantive tax regime which he had opted for. The CIT(A)’s order confirming denial of the section 115BAC benefit was consequently held unsustainable.
Ground Nos. 1 to 8 were allowed and the Assessing Officer/CPC was directed to take into consideration Form No. 10-IE filed on 24.03.2022 and allow the tax regime opted for under section 115BAC notwithstanding the nine-day delay. The consequential tax liability was directed to be recomputed, together with consequential interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C in accordance with law. Ground No. 9 concerning interest was allowed for statistical purposes, Ground No. 10 was treated as general and requiring no separate adjudication, and the assessee’s appeal was allowed.
Cases Discussed
- Ravi Kant Luthra v. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru; ITA No. 444/Asr/2024; AY 2021-22; order dated 27.11.2025 — followed on materially similar nine-day delay in filing Form No. 10-IE.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT AMRITSAR
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Addl./JCIT(A), passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), arising out of the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act for Assessment Year 2021-22.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the original return of income under the old tax regime, claiming deductions under Chapter VI-A of the Act. Subsequently, the assessee opted for taxation under the new regime prescribed under section 115BAC of the Act. The due date applicable for the relevant compliance stood extended up to 15.03.2022. The assessee, however, furnished Form No. 10-IE on 24.03.2022, resulting in a delay of approximately nine days. The assessee also filed the revised return opting for taxation under section 115BAC. The case of the assessee is that the delay in filing Form No. 10-IE occurred due to technical glitches/difficulties in the income-tax e-filing portal prevailing during the relevant period. It was submitted that immediately upon the relevant utility becoming functional, the assessee filed Form No. 10-IE along with the revised return. The assessee also relied upon the successive CBDT circulars extending the statutory timelines on account of difficulties in electronic filing. While processing the return under section 143(1), the CPC denied the benefit of the lower rate of tax under section 115BAC on the ground that Form No. 10-IE had not been filed by the prescribed due date. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A), who confirmed the action of the CPC. Hence, the present appeal.
3. The assessee has raised various grounds challenging the denial of the benefit of section 115BAC. In substance, the grievances are that the lower authorities erred in denying the benefit merely because Form No. 10-IE was filed after the due date; that the delay was only nine days and was occasioned by technical glitches in the e-filing portal; that the requirement of filing the form within the prescribed time was directory; and that the revised return and Form No. 10-IE, having been furnished and being available before the Department, ought to have been considered. The assessee has also raised grounds concerning the scope of adjustment under section 143(1), consequential computation of tax and levy of interest. The grounds are reproduced in substance in the appellate record.
4. The learned AR submitted that the assessee had substantially complied with the requirements of section 115BAC. It was submitted that the due date for the relevant compliance was 15.03.2022 whereas Form No. 10-IE was filed on 24.03.2022, involving a delay of only nine days. It was contended that the delay was not deliberate but occurred due to technical glitches in the income-tax e-filing portal. The assessee had initially filed the return under the old regime and, after the relevant utility became functional, immediately filed Form No. 10-IE and the revised return opting for taxation under section 115BAC. The learned AR further submitted that the CBDT had itself recognised the difficulties being faced by taxpayers in electronic filing during the relevant period and had issued successive circulars extending the due dates. Circular No. 1/2022 extended the due date for AY 2021-22 to 15.03.2022 on consideration of difficulties reported by taxpayers and stakeholders in electronic filing. It was further submitted that the prescribed form had ultimately been filed and was available before the Department. Therefore, a minor procedural delay should not result in denial of the substantive benefit of the new tax regime.
5. The learned AR relied upon various decisions, including the decision of the coordinate Bench in Ravi Kant Luthra v. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru, ITA No. 444/Asr/2024, wherein, on materially similar facts, the Tribunal considered a nine-day delay in filing Form No. 10-IE and directed that the form be taken into cognizance for allowing the benefit of section 115BAC.
6. The learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of the lower authorities. The learned DR submitted that the assessee was required to exercise the option under section 115BAC in the prescribed manner within the stipulated time. Since Form No. 10-IE was admittedly filed after the prescribed due date, the benefit of the concessional tax regime had rightly been denied by the CPC and confirmed by the learned CIT(A). The learned DR, therefore, relied upon the reasoning recorded by the learned CIT(A) and submitted that the appeal deserved to be dismissed. However, when specifically confronted with the submission of the learned AR regarding the technical glitches in the e-filing portal which allegedly prevented timely filing of Form No. 10-IE, the learned DR could not effectively controvert the said factual submission. This aspect is also recorded in the coordinate Bench decision in Ravi Kant Luthra.
7. The CPC denied the benefit of section 115BAC on the ground that Form No. 10-IE was not furnished within the prescribed due date. The learned CIT(A) noted that the assessee had filed Form No. 10-IE after the due date and held that, for AY 2021-22, the assessee was required to specify his intention to opt for the new tax regime by filing the prescribed form within the stipulated time. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) concluded that the tax liability was rightly determined under the old regime and dismissed the grounds of appeal.
8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The undisputed facts are that the assessee intended to opt for the tax regime under section 115BAC; Form No. 10-IE was in fact furnished; the form was filed on 24.03.2022 against the due date of 15.03.2022; and the delay was thus approximately nine days. The assessee has consistently explained that the delay was occasioned by technical difficulties in the e-filing portal. The question is whether such a short and explained delay should, in the facts of the present case, result in complete denial of the substantive benefit of section 115BAC. Section 115BAC undoubtedly prescribes the manner in which the option is to be exercised. We do not dilute the statutory requirement. However, the issue before us has to be considered in the factual circumstances in which the default occurred. The assessee did not abandon the option, nor was there a complete failure to furnish the prescribed form. The assessee subsequently furnished Form No. 10-IE and also filed the revised return opting for the new regime. We find considerable force in the contention of the learned AR that the delay was only nine days and that the same occurred during a period in which substantial difficulties were being faced by taxpayers in complying with electronic filing requirements. The CBDT itself had issued successive circulars recognising difficulties in electronic filing and extending various statutory timelines. More importantly, we find that the issue is squarely covered by the reasoning adopted by the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in Ravi Kant Luthra v. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru, ITA No. 444/Asr/2024, AY 2021-22, order dated 27.11.2025. In that case also, the original return was filed under the old regime, the assessee subsequently opted for section 115BAC, and Form No. 10-IE was filed on 24.03.2022 against the due date of 15.03.2022. The delay was nine days and was attributed to technical glitches in the portal. The coordinate Bench took note of the fact that the form had been filed along with the revised return and was available before the Assessing Officer. It held that the benefit of the new regime could not be denied merely on that account and directed the Assessing Officer to take cognizance of Form No. 10-IE for the purpose of assessment. We respectfully concur with the aforesaid view.
9. In our considered opinion, the object of the requirement is substantially fulfilled when the assessee has actually exercised the option and furnished the prescribed form, though belatedly, and the delay is only nine days in circumstances where technical difficulties in the electronic filing system have been specifically pleaded and are not effectively controverted by the Revenue. The distinction between a complete failure to comply with a statutory condition and a minor procedural lapse is material. In the present case, there is no dispute about the assessee’s intention to opt for section 115BAC and no allegation of any abuse of the provision. The assessee completed the prescribed compliance shortly after the due date. We are therefore of the view that such a venial and technical delay cannot be permitted to defeat substantial justice. A procedural requirement, in the peculiar facts before us, cannot be elevated to a level where the assessee is deprived altogether of the substantive tax regime which he had admittedly opted for and for which the prescribed form was subsequently furnished.
10. We also find that the Revenue has not brought any material on record to demonstrate that the assessee deliberately withheld Form No. 10-IE or that the subsequent filing was made with a view to obtain an impermissible advantage. On the contrary, the assessee’s explanation has remained consistent throughout the proceedings. We accordingly hold that the assessee’s claim under section 115BAC deserves to be accepted and the mere delay of nine days in filing Form No. 10-IE, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot justify denial of the substantive benefit. Consequently, the order of the learned CIT(A) confirming denial of the benefit under section 115BAC is not sustainable.
11. In view of the foregoing discussion, Ground Nos. 1 to 8 of the assessee are allowed. The Assessing Officer/CPC is directed to take into consideration Form No. 10-IE filed by the assessee on 24.03.2022 and allow the benefit of the tax regime opted for under section 115BAC, notwithstanding the delay of nine days in furnishing the said form. The consequential tax liability shall be recomputed accordingly. Any consequential interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C shall also be recomputed in accordance with law.
12. Ground No. 9 relating to levy of interest is consequential and is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. Ground No. 10, being general in nature, does not require separate adjudication.
13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 08th September,2026.
