I meant to stay in the new regime but a wrong Form 10-IE put me back in the old one, and CPC has taxed me under the old regime with no Chapter VI-A deductions because I claimed none in the return. Can I claim them now?
Yes. The Chennai Tribunal held that a fresh claim of deduction made for the first time before the first appellate authority has to be entertained, and directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the income allowing Rs 2,00,000 of Chapter VI-A deductions — Rs 1,50,000 under s.80C and Rs 50,000 under s.80TTB — that had never been claimed in the return. If CPC has processed the return on the old regime, the assessee is entitled to the old regime's deductions.
Decided by the ITAT (Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Judicial Member and Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Accountant Member) on 2025-08-05, reported as ITA No.1007/Chny/2025 (ITAT Chennai 'B' Bench); Assessment Year 2023-24; heard 3 July 2025. It bears on section 115BAC, section 80C, section 80TTB, section 143(1), section 250, section 254 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Deductions & Disallowances, Appeals, Assessment & Scrutiny and Refunds, Interest & Condonation matters.
This is the exact whipsaw the regime forms produce: the taxpayer files a return computed on one regime and the form position puts him on the other, so he is taxed under a regime whose deductions he never claimed. The order gives the answer of principle — you get the deductions of the regime you are actually taxed under, and the fact that they are absent from the return is not an answer once the matter is before an appellate authority. Three things to carry away. First, the Goetze bar operates on the Assessing Officer, not on the appellate authorities; the Supreme Court said in terms that the issue there was limited to the power of the assessing authority and did not impinge on the Tribunal's power under s.254. Second, the year here was AY 2023-24, the last year in which s.115BAC was OPTIONAL and Form 10-IE under Rule 21AG was the form; from AY 2024-25 the regime is the DEFAULT and Form 10-IEA is the form, and it is now the form for opting OUT — so the same mistake in a later year produces the opposite result, and the trap is failing to file Form 10-IEA rather than filing Form 10-IE by accident. Third, s.80TTB was allowed here only because the assessee ended up in the old regime; it is one of the deductions that s.115BAC removes.
Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The assessee is a doctor with professional income and income from other sources. She had exercised her option for the new tax regime under s.115BAC and filed Form No. 10IE under Rule 21AG on 31 December 2021, relevant to assessment year 2021-22. For assessment year 2023-24 she wished to continue in the new regime and filed her return on 29 June 2023 without any claim for deduction under Chapter VI-A. She says she then inadvertently filed Form No. 10IE withdrawing her option for the new regime. Because that withdrawal was on record, CPC processed the return under the old regime and raised a demand of Rs 84,570 on 29 June 2023. Before the CIT(A) she contended that since CPC had treated the return as one filed under the old regime she was eligible for Chapter VI-A deductions, that she could claim them in the appellate proceedings although they were not claimed in the return, and she produced proof of Rs 2,00,000 — Rs 1,50,000 under s.80C and Rs 50,000 under s.80TTB. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, holding there was no discrepancy in the CPC order under s.143(1). Before the Tribunal the Departmental Representative argued that unless the claim is made in the return CPC cannot process it.
The appeal was allowed on this ground. It is trite law that a fresh claim of deduction made before the first appellate authority has to be entertained by him, and an assessee can make a claim of deduction for the first time before the appellate authorities, who are bound to entertain it. The first appellate authority ought to have considered the Chapter VI-A claim in tune with the old regime and recomputed the income after giving effect to it. The Assessing Officer was directed to recompute the income by allowing the Chapter VI-A deduction of Rs 2,00,000 (paras 7 and 10).
The Tribunal did not treat the regime question as the difficulty. Once CPC had processed the return under the old regime, the consequence the Tribunal drew was simply that the old regime's deductions had to be given. The only obstacle was that the claim was absent from the return, and the Tribunal disposed of that by the settled line on fresh claims: Goetze (India) Ltd v CIT, in which the Supreme Court held that an Assessing Officer cannot entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by a revised return but expressly confined that to the power of the assessing authority, saying the issue did not impinge on the power of the Tribunal under s.254; the Madras High Court in Abhinitha Foundations, holding that a claim that forms no part of the original or even the revised return can still be considered by appellate authorities where the relevant material is on record; and the same view in Ramco Cements, Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders, Jai Parabolic Springs and Chicago Pneumatic India. Applying that consistent view, the Tribunal held the first appellate authority had been wrong to stop at the absence of any discrepancy in the s.143(1) processing, and directed recomputation allowing the deductions proved before him.
It is trite law that a fresh claim of deduction made before the FAA has to be entertained by him.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppYes. The Chennai Tribunal held that a fresh claim of deduction made for the first time before the first appellate authority has to be entertained, and directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the income allowing Rs 2,00,000 of Chapter VI-A deductions — Rs 1,50,000 under s.80C and Rs 50,000 under s.80TTB — that had never been claimed in the return. If CPC has processed the return on the old regime, the assessee is entitled to the old regime's deductions. This was decided by the ITAT (Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Judicial Member and Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Accountant Member) and bears on section 115BAC, section 80C, section 80TTB, section 143(1), section 250, section 254 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as ITA No.1007/Chny/2025 (ITAT Chennai 'B' Bench); Assessment Year 2023-24; heard 3 July 2025. This is the exact whipsaw the regime forms produce: the taxpayer files a return computed on one regime and the form position puts him on the other, so he is taxed under a regime whose deductions he never claimed. The order gives the answer of principle — you get the deductions of the regime you are actually taxed under, and the fact that they are absent from the return is not an answer once the matter is before an appellate authority. Three things to carry away. First, the Goetze bar operates on the Assessing Officer, not on the appellate authorities; the Supreme Court said in terms that the issue there was limited to the power of the assessing authority and did not impinge on the Tribunal's power under s.254. Second, the year here was AY 2023-24, the last year in which s.115BAC was OPTIONAL and Form 10-IE under Rule 21AG was the form; from AY 2024-25 the regime is the DEFAULT and Form 10-IEA is the form, and it is now the form for opting OUT — so the same mistake in a later year produces the opposite result, and the trap is failing to file Form 10-IEA rather than filing Form 10-IE by accident. Third, s.80TTB was allowed here only because the assessee ended up in the old regime; it is one of the deductions that s.115BAC removes. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Work out first which regime the return was actually PROCESSED on, from the s.143(1) intimation, not which one you intended; the deductions you are entitled to follow from that.
The assessee is a doctor with professional income and income from other sources. She had exercised her option for the new tax regime under s.115BAC and filed Form No. 10IE under Rule 21AG on 31 December 2021, relevant to assessment year 2021-22. For assessment year 2023-24 she wished to continue in the new regime and filed her return on 29 June 2023 without any claim for deduction under Chapter VI-A. She says she then inadvertently filed Form No. 10IE withdrawing her option for the new regime. Because that withdrawal was on record, CPC processed the return under the old regime and raised a demand of Rs 84,570 on 29 June 2023. Before the CIT(A) she contended that since CPC had treated the return as one filed under the old regime she was eligible for Chapter VI-A deductions, that she could claim them in the appellate proceedings although they were not claimed in the return, and she produced proof of Rs 2,00,000 — Rs 1,50,000 under s.80C and Rs 50,000 under s.80TTB. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, holding there was no discrepancy in the CPC order under s.143(1). Before the Tribunal the Departmental Representative argued that unless the claim is made in the return CPC cannot process it. The matter was decided on 2025-08-05 by the ITAT (Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Judicial Member and Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Accountant Member). On those facts the ITAT held as follows. The appeal was allowed on this ground. It is trite law that a fresh claim of deduction made before the first appellate authority has to be entertained by him, and an assessee can make a claim of deduction for the first time before the appellate authorities, who are bound to entertain it. The first appellate authority ought to have considered the Chapter VI-A claim in tune with the old regime and recomputed the income after giving effect to it. The Assessing Officer was directed to recompute the income by allowing the Chapter VI-A deduction of Rs 2,00,000 (paras 7 and 10).
The Tribunal did not treat the regime question as the difficulty. Once CPC had processed the return under the old regime, the consequence the Tribunal drew was simply that the old regime's deductions had to be given. The only obstacle was that the claim was absent from the return, and the Tribunal disposed of that by the settled line on fresh claims: Goetze (India) Ltd v CIT, in which the Supreme Court held that an Assessing Officer cannot entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by a revised return but expressly confined that to the power of the assessing authority, saying the issue did not impinge on the power of the Tribunal under s.254; the Madras High Court in Abhinitha Foundations, holding that a claim that forms no part of the original or even the revised return can still be considered by appellate authorities where the relevant material is on record; and the same view in Ramco Cements, Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders, Jai Parabolic Springs and Chicago Pneumatic India. Applying that consistent view, the Tribunal held the first appellate authority had been wrong to stop at the absence of any discrepancy in the s.143(1) processing, and directed recomputation allowing the deductions proved before him. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "It is trite law that a fresh claim of deduction made before the FAA has to be entertained by him." The decision followed or applied Goetze (India) Ltd v CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC) — relied on; CIT v Abhinitha Foundation (P.) Ltd. [2017] 396 ITR 251 (Mad.) — relied on; Ramco Cements Ltd. v DCIT [2015] 373 ITR 146 (Mad.) — relied on; CIT v Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Private Ltd [2012] 349 ITR 336 (Bom.) — relied on; CIT v Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd (2008) 306 ITR 42 (Del.) — relied on; Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd v DCIT [2007] 15 SOT 252 (Mumbai) — relied on.
It was decided by the ITAT on 2025-08-05 and is reported as ITA No.1007/Chny/2025 (ITAT Chennai 'B' Bench); Assessment Year 2023-24; heard 3 July 2025. Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A Tribunal decision binds the assessing officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) within that Tribunal's jurisdiction, and is persuasive before other benches. It is not binding on a High Court, and a contrary co-ordinate bench decision will be argued against you, so check whether the point has been taken the other way before you build a reply around it. On section 115BAC, section 80C, section 80TTB, section 143(1), section 250, section 254, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. The appeal was allowed on this ground. It is trite law that a fresh claim of deduction made before the first appellate authority has to be entertained by him, and an assessee can make a claim of deduction for the first time before the appellate authorities, who are bound to entertain it. The first appellate authority ought to have considered the Chapter VI-A claim in tune with the old regime and recomputed the income after giving effect to it. The Assessing Officer was directed to recompute the income by allowing the Chapter VI-A deduction of Rs 2,00,000 (paras 7 and 10). It arises in Deductions & Disallowances, Appeals, Assessment & Scrutiny and Refunds, Interest & Condonation matters, on section 115BAC, section 80C, section 80TTB, section 143(1), section 250, section 254 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Judicial Member and Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Accountant Member. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. If CPC has applied the old regime, put the whole Chapter VI-A claim before the CIT(A) with proof, even though it appears nowhere in the return, and rely on this line of authority — Goetze (India) Ltd v CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC), CIT v Abhinitha Foundation (P.) Ltd [2017] 396 ITR 251 (Mad.), Ramco Cements Ltd v DCIT [2015] 373 ITR 146 (Mad.), CIT v Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt Ltd [2012] 349 ITR 336 (Bom.) and CIT v Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd (2008) 306 ITR 42 (Del.). Do not put the fresh claim to the Assessing Officer alone and stop there — Goetze bars him from entertaining it without a revised return; the claim has to be carried to the appellate stage. For a resident senior citizen, claim under s.80TTB and not s.80TTA; s.80TTB covers interest on deposits generally, while s.80TTA is confined to interest on savings accounts, and s.80TTA(2) shuts out anyone eligible under s.80TTB. For AY 2024-25 onward, check Form 10-IEA and its due date, not Form 10-IE: the regime is now the default and the form is the one that takes you out of it. Where the form was filed by mistake, say so squarely and attach the acknowledgement with its date; here the Form 10-IE relied on had been filed on 31 December 2021 for AY 2021-22.
Searched for later treatment; none was found. That is not the same as a source affirming it. The citator returns nothing and a case-name search across all courts returns only this order. Nothing has taken up the holding on Form 10IE and the first claim of Chapter VI-A deductions under s.115BAC, and no appeal to the Madras High Court was traced. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The narrative in paragraph 2 is internally awkward and should be read carefully. It records that the assessee exercised her option for the new regime and filed Form No. 10IE under Rule 21AG on 31 December 2021 relevant to AY 2021-22, that for AY 2023-24 she wished to continue in the new regime and filed her return without any Chapter VI-A claim, and that she "had inadvertently filed the Form No.10IE, by opting to withdraw from the option of filing taxes under the 'new regime'" — that is, a second Form 10-IE withdrawing the earlier option. It also gives 29 June 2023 both as the date the return was filed and as the date the demand of Rs 84,570 was raised. The order does not set out the grounds of appeal as numbered, and the concluding line says the appeal "is partly allowed" although paragraph 10 allows the appeal and directs the whole Rs 2,00,000. The passage attributed to Goetze in paragraph 8 is presented partly in quotation marks and partly in the Tribunal's own words; the key_quote has been taken from paragraph 7, which is the Tribunal's own sentence. The Form 10-IEA and AY 2024-25 default statements in this entry are the editor's, from the Income Tax Department's s.115BAC page, and are not findings in this order. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The appeal was allowed on this ground. It is trite law that a fresh claim of deduction made before the first appellate authority has to be entertained by him, and an assessee can make a claim of deduction for the first time before the appellate authorities, who are bound to entertain it. The first appellate authority ought to have considered the Chapter VI-A claim in tune with the old regime and recomputed the income after giving effect to it. The Assessing Officer was directed to recompute the income by allowing the Chapter VI-A deduction of Rs 2,00,000 (paras 7 and 10).
TaxSphere, “Dr. Rangasamy Sudha v ITO, Erode”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/dr-rangasamy-sudha-v-ito-115bac-form-10ie-chapter-via-first-claim/ (validity last checked 2026-09-07)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
I filed my return under the new regime by default, then filed a revised return within time switching to the old regime and claiming my exemptions and Chapter VI-A deductions. The CPC has processed it under the new regime saying the regime cannot be changed in a revised return. Can it?
My s.148 reassessment started over a political donation but the Assessing Officer has disallowed my 80D and 80DDB for my parents' medical expenses as well. Are those safe?
In a s.147 reassessment the Assessing Officer has thrown out my s.80U disability deduction along with 80C and 80TTA because I produced nothing during the assessment. Can I still prove it in appeal?
The Assessing Officer has disallowed my whole Chapter VI-A block — 80C, 80D, 80G — and my HRA, saying I filed no documentary evidence. I did file it. What do I do?
