Thejaswini Jakkaraju Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)
Assessee filed her original income tax return on 22.06.2024 under the old tax regime but inadvertently did not claim the rebate of ₹21,350 available u/s 87A. To rectify this omission, she submitted a revised return on 11.07.2024, claiming the rebate. However, the CPC, Bangalore processed the return u/s143(1) & denied the rebate.
Aggrieved by this denial, Assessee first sought rectification u/s 154, but upon receiving no response, filed an appeal before the CIT(A) which was delayed & condoned. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, holding that shifting from the new to old tax regime is not a valid reason to file a revised return & that the revised return was not admissible.
Assessee contended that the failure to claim the rebate u/s 87A was an error/omission justifying the revised return.Rebate u/s 87A is available under both the new & old tax regimes. Adjustments u/s143(1)(a) do not include denial of section 87A rebate. Legal reliance was placed on section 115BAC (new tax regime) & a 2025 Bombay High Court decision in Chamber of Tax Consultants v. DGIT (System) [2025] 473 ITR 85.
Tribunal held that the failure to claim rebate u/s 87A in the original return clearly constituted an omission & hence the revised return was valid under law. It clarified that the Supreme Court’s ruling in CIT v. Wipro Ltd., cited by CIT(A), was not applicable here since that case pertained to converting a return into a loss return, whereas here it was merely a case of claiming a rightful rebate. Citing the Bombay High Court ruling in Chamber of Tax Consultants, the Tribunal affirmed that the benefit of section 87A was available & allowable. Tribunal allowed the appeal & directed the AO to grant the rebate of ₹21,350 u/s87A to the assessee.
