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?
On this order, yes, for a salaried assessee with no business or professional income. The Tribunal held that a revised return filed in time under s.139(5) supersedes the original, that the proviso to s.115BAC(6) restricting the number of times the option may be exercised does not apply where there is no business or professional income, and that the filing of Form 10-IEA is procedural — the delay in filing it was condoned and the fact of filing it satisfied the requirement. The Assessing Officer was directed to process the revised return under the old regime with the exemptions and deductions claimed.
Decided by the ITAT (Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member and Sh. Naveen Chandra, Accountant Member (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'DB', New Delhi); order per Naveen Chandra, Accountant Member) on 2026-08-03, reported as ITA No. 92/DDN/2026, Assessment Year 2024-25 (ITAT); date of hearing 29 May 2026. It bears on section 115BAC, section 139(5), section 143(1), section 80C, section 80CCD(2), section 80CCD(1B), section 80D of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Salary & Perquisites, Deductions & Disallowances and Assessment & Scrutiny matters.
From AY 2024-25 s.115BAC is the default. A salaried person who does nothing is taxed under it, and under it s.10(13A) house rent allowance, most s.10(14) allowances and most of Chapter VI-A are unavailable — while the s.16(ia) standard deduction is available and remains so. That is the trap this order is about: the assessee here lost Rs 20,62,151 of claimed exemption on arrears and Rs 2,12,000 of Chapter VI-A deduction not on the merits but because the CPC treated the regime chosen in the original return as fixed. What the order gives a practitioner is a route back — the revised return supersedes the original, and Form 10-IEA is machinery rather than a condition precedent for an assessee with no business income. What it does not give is comfort about a business assessee: the proviso to s.115BAC(6) restricts a business or professional assessee to one withdrawal of the option, and the Tribunal was careful to record that the assessee had no business income and so the proviso was not in play. Treat the holding as confined to that class. The order is also very recent and was decided by a single Bench, so it should be pleaded as persuasive rather than settled.
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, an individual, received salary and arrears from the office of the District Judge, Dehradun. For AY 2024-25 he filed his original return on 26 July 2024 declaring total income of Rs 42,59,820 under the new tax regime in pursuance of s.115BAC, which was processed under s.143(1) on 30 July 2024. He then filed a revised return under s.139(5) on 26 September 2024 opting for the old tax regime and declaring income of Rs 31,15,190, after claiming exemption of Rs 20,62,151 on arrears of past years including the current year under s.10 and Rs 5,71,360 as deduction under Chapter VI-A comprising s.80C, s.80CCD(2), s.80CCD(1B) and s.80D. Form 10-IEA was filed, but late. The CPC processed the revised return on 8 May 2025 under the new regime, disallowing the exemption of Rs 20,62,151 and Rs 2,12,000 of the Chapter VI-A deduction and allowing only s.80CCD(2) of Rs 3,59,360, on the stated reason that a taxpayer is not allowed to change the tax regime in a revised or corrected return so that the revised return would be processed as per the regime opted in the original return. The Commissioner (Appeals), ADDL/JCIT(A)-1, Mumbai, dismissed the appeal by order dated 19 December 2025 on the ground that the regime cannot be changed in a revised return. It was unrebutted that the assessee had no income from business or profession.
The appeal was allowed. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside and the Assessing Officer directed to process the revised return filed on 26 September 2024 under the old tax regime, with the exemption and deductions claimed in it (para 7).
The Tribunal identified the sole issue as whether a revised return filed within time under s.139(5), shifting from the new regime to the old and claiming exemption and deductions, is valid in law. It was admitted that the revised return was within the prescribed time. Applying the Allahabad High Court's decision in Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1973] 90 ITR 236 (All.), a revised return under s.139(5) supersedes the original return, and once a valid revised return is filed the original is treated as withdrawn and cannot be used for assessment purposes (para 6). It was further unrebutted that the assessee had no income from business or profession, so the proviso to sub-section (6) of s.115BAC, which restricts the number of times the option may be exercised, was not applicable. Form 10-IEA had been filed, albeit late; the Tribunal found the assessee had been prevented by sufficient cause and condoned the delay, holding that the filing of Form 10-IEA is in the nature of a procedural requirement so that the fact of its having been filed fulfilled the requirement for processing the return under the old regime and made the assessee eligible for the exemption and deductions claimed. The coordinate Bench decision in Sushma Pathak v. ITO (ITA No. 2590/Del/2024, order dated 24 September 2024) was followed (para 7).
Filing of Form 10-IEA is in the nature of procedural requirement, hence the fact of filing the same fulfils the requirement of processing the return under "Old Regime", making the assessee eligible for the exemption and deductions claimed in the revised return.
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 WhatsAppOn this order, yes, for a salaried assessee with no business or professional income. The Tribunal held that a revised return filed in time under s.139(5) supersedes the original, that the proviso to s.115BAC(6) restricting the number of times the option may be exercised does not apply where there is no business or professional income, and that the filing of Form 10-IEA is procedural — the delay in filing it was condoned and the fact of filing it satisfied the requirement. The Assessing Officer was directed to process the revised return under the old regime with the exemptions and deductions claimed. This was decided by the ITAT (Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member and Sh. Naveen Chandra, Accountant Member (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'DB', New Delhi); order per Naveen Chandra, Accountant Member) and bears on section 115BAC, section 139(5), section 143(1), section 80C, section 80CCD(2), section 80CCD(1B), section 80D of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as ITA No. 92/DDN/2026, Assessment Year 2024-25 (ITAT); date of hearing 29 May 2026. From AY 2024-25 s.115BAC is the default. A salaried person who does nothing is taxed under it, and under it s.10(13A) house rent allowance, most s.10(14) allowances and most of Chapter VI-A are unavailable — while the s.16(ia) standard deduction is available and remains so. That is the trap this order is about: the assessee here lost Rs 20,62,151 of claimed exemption on arrears and Rs 2,12,000 of Chapter VI-A deduction not on the merits but because the CPC treated the regime chosen in the original return as fixed. What the order gives a practitioner is a route back — the revised return supersedes the original, and Form 10-IEA is machinery rather than a condition precedent for an assessee with no business income. What it does not give is comfort about a business assessee: the proviso to s.115BAC(6) restricts a business or professional assessee to one withdrawal of the option, and the Tribunal was careful to record that the assessee had no business income and so the proviso was not in play. Treat the holding as confined to that class. The order is also very recent and was decided by a single Bench, so it should be pleaded as persuasive rather than settled. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Establish first that the assessee has no income from business or profession; the whole of the reasoning turns on the proviso to s.115BAC(6) being inapplicable.
The assessee, an individual, received salary and arrears from the office of the District Judge, Dehradun. For AY 2024-25 he filed his original return on 26 July 2024 declaring total income of Rs 42,59,820 under the new tax regime in pursuance of s.115BAC, which was processed under s.143(1) on 30 July 2024. He then filed a revised return under s.139(5) on 26 September 2024 opting for the old tax regime and declaring income of Rs 31,15,190, after claiming exemption of Rs 20,62,151 on arrears of past years including the current year under s.10 and Rs 5,71,360 as deduction under Chapter VI-A comprising s.80C, s.80CCD(2), s.80CCD(1B) and s.80D. Form 10-IEA was filed, but late. The CPC processed the revised return on 8 May 2025 under the new regime, disallowing the exemption of Rs 20,62,151 and Rs 2,12,000 of the Chapter VI-A deduction and allowing only s.80CCD(2) of Rs 3,59,360, on the stated reason that a taxpayer is not allowed to change the tax regime in a revised or corrected return so that the revised return would be processed as per the regime opted in the original return. The Commissioner (Appeals), ADDL/JCIT(A)-1, Mumbai, dismissed the appeal by order dated 19 December 2025 on the ground that the regime cannot be changed in a revised return. It was unrebutted that the assessee had no income from business or profession. The matter was decided on 2026-08-03 by the ITAT (Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member and Sh. Naveen Chandra, Accountant Member (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'DB', New Delhi); order per Naveen Chandra, Accountant Member). On those facts the ITAT held as follows. The appeal was allowed. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside and the Assessing Officer directed to process the revised return filed on 26 September 2024 under the old tax regime, with the exemption and deductions claimed in it (para 7).
The Tribunal identified the sole issue as whether a revised return filed within time under s.139(5), shifting from the new regime to the old and claiming exemption and deductions, is valid in law. It was admitted that the revised return was within the prescribed time. Applying the Allahabad High Court's decision in Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1973] 90 ITR 236 (All.), a revised return under s.139(5) supersedes the original return, and once a valid revised return is filed the original is treated as withdrawn and cannot be used for assessment purposes (para 6). It was further unrebutted that the assessee had no income from business or profession, so the proviso to sub-section (6) of s.115BAC, which restricts the number of times the option may be exercised, was not applicable. Form 10-IEA had been filed, albeit late; the Tribunal found the assessee had been prevented by sufficient cause and condoned the delay, holding that the filing of Form 10-IEA is in the nature of a procedural requirement so that the fact of its having been filed fulfilled the requirement for processing the return under the old regime and made the assessee eligible for the exemption and deductions claimed. The coordinate Bench decision in Sushma Pathak v. ITO (ITA No. 2590/Del/2024, order dated 24 September 2024) was followed (para 7). In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "Filing of Form 10-IEA is in the nature of procedural requirement, hence the fact of filing the same fulfils the requirement of processing the return under "Old Regime", making the assessee eligible for the exemption and deductions claimed in the revised return." The decision followed or applied Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax [1973] 90 ITR 236 (All.) — applied for the proposition that a revised return supersedes the original; Sushma Pathak v. ITO, Delhi (ITA No. 2590/Del/2024, order dated 24 September 2024) — followed.
It was decided by the ITAT on 2026-08-03 and is reported as ITA No. 92/DDN/2026, Assessment Year 2024-25 (ITAT); date of hearing 29 May 2026. 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 139(5), section 143(1), section 80C, section 80CCD(2), section 80CCD(1B), section 80D, 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. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside and the Assessing Officer directed to process the revised return filed on 26 September 2024 under the old tax regime, with the exemption and deductions claimed in it (para 7). It arises in Salary & Perquisites, Deductions & Disallowances and Assessment & Scrutiny matters, on section 115BAC, section 139(5), section 143(1), section 80C, section 80CCD(2), section 80CCD(1B), section 80D of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member and Sh. Naveen Chandra, Accountant Member (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'DB', New Delhi); order per Naveen Chandra, 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. File the revised return under s.139(5) within the time allowed and claim the old regime in it, rather than relying on a rectification or a s.154 application. File Form 10-IEA even if late, and ask for condonation on the ground of sufficient cause — the fact of filing was what the Tribunal treated as fulfilling the requirement. Where the CPC's reason for the variation is quoted in the intimation, reproduce it in the appeal; the intimation here recorded in terms that 'taxpayer is not allowed to change tax regime in revised/corrected return', which framed the only issue. If the claim is for relief on salary arrears, do not leave it labelled as an exemption 'under s.10'; identify the clause, or if the claim is really relief under s.89 for arrears, file Form 10E, which is a separate and mandatory step. For the year of transition, check the s.16(ia) standard deduction is taken in whichever regime is finally applied — it survives under s.115BAC, at Rs 50,000 for AY 2024-25 and Rs 75,000 from AY 2025-26, against Rs 50,000 under the old regime.
Searched for later treatment; none was found. That is not the same as a source affirming it. A `citedby:` citator search on this order's Indian Kanoon id returns no later decision citing it. A second, differently worded probe - the assessee's name restricted to documents from 3 August 2026 onward, across all courts including the High Courts and the Supreme Court - turned up no judicial treatment either. The probe was narrowed with "Haldwani" because the assessee's name is common; it returns only this order. In particular no appeal under section 260A, and so no High Court reversal, could be traced, and no later Bench was found taking the opposite view. This is a August 2026 order, so the silence reflects its age rather than any doubt about it: a practitioner may cite it as the only direct authority on the point but should not expect it to be treated as settled. 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.
Several oddities in the report. (i) The CPC's recorded reason refers to 'the original return filed on 16.07.2024' while para 2 states the original return was filed on 26 July 2024; the discrepancy is in the order as printed. (ii) The figures reconcile once read together — deduction claimed Rs 5,71,360, allowed Rs 3,59,360 under s.80CCD(2), disallowed Rs 2,12,000 — but the order does not say so. (iii) The exemption of Rs 20,62,151 on 'arrears of past years including current year' is described only as claimed 'u/s 10'; no clause is identified and s.89 and Form 10E are nowhere mentioned, which is surprising for a claim on salary arrears. (iv) The order is headed 'Delhi Bench DB, New Delhi' while the appeal number is 92/DDN/2026, a Dehradun number. (v) A sentence in para 4 is ungrammatical as printed ('where the ITAT that a revised return filed under section 139(5) is valid'). (vi) The order refers to the proviso to 'sub-section 6 of section 115BAC'; the section as amended by the Finance Act 2023 carries sub-section (6) in the substituted provision, and the reader should check the sub-section numbering for the year in hand. 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. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside and the Assessing Officer directed to process the revised return filed on 26 September 2024 under the old tax regime, with the exemption and deductions claimed in it (para 7).
TaxSphere, “Manmohan Singh v ITO”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/manmohan-singh-v-ito-115bac-form-10-iea-revised-return-old-regime/ (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.
My client is in the default regime under s.115BAC. Can he still claim the extra fifty thousand for NPS, and what is the ceiling on his employer's NPS contribution now?
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?
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?
I filed under s.44AD and the officer has still added my whole bank credit under s.69A. Doesn't the presumptive return protect me?
