TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 1063
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3. That the order passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, is 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 8. It is observed that even in the present case, the applications filed by the assessee before the Id. CIT(Appeals) seeking condonation of the delay in filing the appeals for 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e parties. (5) There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...................." 6.1 We find that the assessee has a sufficient cause for non-submission of the appeal within due time. The merit was also not considered in appeal stage as it is I.T.A. No.57/Asr/2021 Assessment Year: 2010-11 9 decided in limine. Therefore, we 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 i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he taxpayers and other stakeholders in electronic filing of Income-tax returns and various reports of audit CIRCULAR NO. 17/2021 31^st December, 2021 Difficulties reported by the taxpayers and other stakeholders in electronic filing of Income-tax returns and various reports of audit CIRCULAR NO. 01/2022 15th March 2022 On consideration 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, a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rn if discrepancies are identified during the assessment process. * Replacing the Original Return: The revised return replaces the original return filed for a particular assessment year. Once the revised return is submitted, it is considered the final return for that year. 5.3 That any individual or entity that has filed an original income tax return under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, can file a revised income tax return 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 i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cannot be denied. Ground No. 6 That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not accepting the form 10IE 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. 10.1 The only objection of ADIT (CPC) is that the assessee has not filed Form 10-IE electronically before due date for filing return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. That Form 10-IE could not be uploaded on ITBA Portal due to the technical glitch as submitted above. The ADIT (CPC) had failed to consider 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 t....