TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1163
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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. 10IE occurred due to technical glitches/difficulties in the income-tax e-filing portal prevailing during the relevant period.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he 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 efiling 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 d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 caref....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 Ass....