Case Law Details
Arun Gopilal Samnani Vs CPC Bangalore (ITAT Ahmedabad)
In Arun Gopilal Samnani Vs CPC Bangalore, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench, considered an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 04.07.2025 passed by the Addl./JCIT(Appeal)-7, Mumbai for Assessment Year 2021-22 in proceedings under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act.
The assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y. 2021-22 on 28.03.2022 declaring total income of Rs. 9,21,200. The return was processed by the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), resulting in a tax demand of Rs. 40,840. According to the assessee, the demand arose because the return was processed under the old tax regime instead of the new tax regime.
The assessee stated that he had opted for the new tax regime by filing Form No. 10-IE on 22.03.2022. Thereafter, a rectification application under Section 154 of the Act was filed requesting that the benefit of the new tax regime be granted in accordance with the Form No. 10-IE submitted by him. However, the CPC rejected the rectification application through an order dated 01.08.2024.
Aggrieved by the rejection, the assessee filed an appeal before the first appellate authority. The Addl. CIT(A), through the impugned order, dismissed the appeal. The assessee then filed a second appeal before the ITAT.
Before the Tribunal, the assessee contended that although Form No. 10-IE was required to be filed within the due date prescribed under Section 139(1), the form had in fact been filed along with the return under Section 139(4). The assessee argued that filing Form No. 10-IE was merely a procedural requirement and that the form was already available with the CPC at the time of processing the return. Therefore, according to the assessee, the CPC should not have ignored the form while processing the return under the old tax regime.
The assessee further submitted that the issue was covered by the decision of the Pune Tribunal in Akshay Devendra Birari v. Dy. CIT as well as by an earlier order of the Ahmedabad Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for Assessment Year 2023-24.
On the other hand, the Revenue contended that the assessee was required to exercise the option for the new tax regime by filing Form No. 10-IE within the due date prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Act. Since the form was not filed within the prescribed due date, the CPC had correctly processed the return under the old tax regime.
After considering the rival submissions, the Tribunal observed that the central issue was whether the CPC was justified in processing the return under the old tax regime despite the availability of Form No. 10-IE at the time of processing the return.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had admittedly failed to file Form No. 10-IE within the due date prescribed under Section 139(1). However, it also recorded that the assessee had filed the form along with the return of income, and therefore the form was available with the CPC during processing under Section 143(1).
The ITAT held that filing Form No. 10-IE was not a mandatory requirement and that the option available to the assessee for opting into the new tax regime was directory in nature. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the CPC was not correct in ignoring Form No. 10-IE while processing the return.
The Tribunal further observed that the issue was squarely covered by the decisions of the Pune Tribunal in Akshay Devendra Birari and by the Ahmedabad Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2023-24.
Accordingly, the ITAT directed the CPC/Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to amend the intimation issued under Section 143(1) by taking into consideration Form No. 10-IE filed by the assessee and to levy tax in accordance with the new tax regime. Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal held that Ground No. 2, which was raised in the alternative seeking deduction benefits under the old regime, had become infructuous in view of the decision on Ground No. 1. Therefore, Ground No. 2 was dismissed.
As a result, the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT AHMEDABAD
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 04.07.2025 passed by Addl/JCIT(Appeal) – 7 Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as ‘Addl. CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2021-22 in the proceeding u/s. 154 of the Income Tax Act.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y. 2021-22 on 28.03.2022 declaring total income of Rs.9,21,200/-. The return was processed u/s. 143(3) of the Act by the CPC on 11.04.2022 raising demand of Rs.40,840/-. The demand was raised for the reason that the return was processed as per the old tax regime instead of the new tax regime. The assessee had opted for new tax regime by filing form No. 10-IE on 22.03.2022. Thereafter, the assessee had filed a rectification application u/s. 154 of the Act, with a request to allow the benefit of the new tax regime in accordance with Form No. 10-IE filed by him. The CPC had passed an order u/s. 154 of the Act on 01.08.2024, rejecting the application of the assessee.
3. Aggrieved with the rectification order of the CPC, the assessee had filed an appeal before the first appellate authority, which was decided by the learned Addl. CIT(A), vide the impugned order and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. Th
4. Now the assessee is in second appeal before us. The following grounds have been taken in this appeal:
1. Ld. Officer, CPC, has erred in processing the return of income for Asst. Year 2021-22 under old regime though the assessee filed form 10-IE to opt for new regime on 22.03.2022.
2. Without prejudice to ground-1 and alternatively Ld. AO, CPC has erred in not granting benefit of deductions allowable under old regime. Therefore, the case shall be transferred to ld. Jurisdiction AO and JAO shall allow the eligible deductions and benefits under old regime based on the documents produced by assessee.
3. The appellant craves to leave, add, alter, modify and/or withdraw any grounds of appeal either before or during the course of the hearing.
5. The first ground pertains to processing of the return under the old regime in spite of form No. 10-IE filed by assessee opting for new tax regime. Shri Biren Shah, the Ld. AR of the assessee, explained that Form No. 10-IE was required to be filed within the due date of filing of return. In the present case, the assessee had filed the return u/s. 139(4) of the Act, along with form No. 10-IE on 23.08.2022. The Ld. AR submitted that the filing of form to opt for new tax regime was only a procedural requirement and the form No. 10-IE as filed by the assessee was duly available with the CPC at the time of processing of the return. Therefore, the CPC was not correct in overlooking the form No. 10-IE and raising demand under the old tax regime. The Ld. AR further submitted that this matter is covered by the decision of Co-ordinate bench of Pune Tribunal in the case of Akshay Devendra Birariv. Dy. CIT (Pune – Trib.) and also by the Co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2023-24 in Arun Gopilal Samnani v. ITO (Ahmedabad – Trib.)/ITA No. 2082/Ahd/2024 dated 29.04.2025.
6. Per Contra, Smt. Ananya Kulshresth, the Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the assessee was required to opt for new tax regime by filing form No. 10-IE within the time limit for due date of return u/s. 139(1) of the Act, which was not complied in the present case. Therefore, the CPC had rightly processed the return of the assessee as per old tax regime, as the form No. 10-IE was not filed within the due date.
7. We have considered the rival submissions. The only issue to be considered in the present case whether the CPC was correct in processing the return of the assessee as per old tax regime, in spite of the fact that form No. 10-IE filed by the assessee was available at the time of processing of the return. Admittedly, the assessee had failed to file the prescribed form No. 10-IE within the prescribed time limit which was the due date for filing of return u/s. 139(1) of the Act. The assessee had filed the form No. 10-IE on 28.03.2022 along with return of income. Thus, the form No. 10-IE was available with the CPC and should have been considered while processing the return u/s. 143(1) of the Act. The filing of form No. 10-IE is not a mandatory requirement. The option given to the assessee to opt for the new tax regime was only directory in nature. Therefore, the CPC was not correct in ignoring the form No. 10-IE available at the time of processing of the return. This issue is found squarely covered by the decision of Co-ordinate bench of Pune tribunal in the case Akshay Devendra Birari(supra) and also by decision of the Coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the assessee’s own case in ITA No. 2082/Ahd/2024, A.Y 2023-24. Accordingly, we direct the CPC/JAO to amend the intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act, by taking into consideration the form No. 10-IE filed by the assessee and the tax should be levied in accordance with the new tax regime. The ground taken by the assessee is allowed.
8. The ground No. 2 taken by the assessee is only an alternative ground and in view of the decision as taken in respect of ground No. 1, this ground has become infructuous. Hence, the ground No. 2 is dismissed.
9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the Court on 21/04/2026 at Ahmedabad.
Author Bio
