Introduction
In a recent and notable income tax appeal case, Thejaswini Jakkaraju—the assessee—secured relief from the appellate authorities regarding the denial of rebate under section 87A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The dispute revolved around a revised return and a claimed rebate of ?21,350, which was originally denied. The case highlights the significance of recognizing genuine omissions and the importance of judicial precedents in tax proceedings.
Background of the Case
The assessee, Thejaswini Jakkaraju, filed her original return of income on 22nd June 2024. This was processed under section 143(1) by the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), Bangalore, without any adjustments. However, on 11th July 2024, she filed a revised return to claim a rebate of ?21,350 under section 87A, which was subsequently denied in the intimation dated 24th September 2024.
Aggrieved by this, the assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jaipur, but the appeal was dismissed on the grounds that switching tax regimes (from new to old) is not considered an omission or error that qualifies for revising the return.
Grounds of Appeal and Delay
Although the appeal to the CIT(A) was filed beyond the due date (due 24th Oct, filed 27th Nov 2024), the delay was condoned, citing that the assessee initially opted to file a rectification application under section 154, which went unattended.
Key Arguments by Assessee
The assessee's representative argued:
The omission to claim rebate under section 87A is a genuine error that qualifies for a revised return.
Section 115BAC (new tax regime) does not restrict the availability of rebate u/s 87A, meaning the benefit is available under both tax regimes.
The denial of the rebate under section 143(1)(a) was not justified, as it does not permit adjustment on this account.
Revenue's Stand
The department’s representative supported the lower authorities, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in CIT v. Wipro Ltd. to argue that revised returns can't be used to alter the nature of the return unless there's a clear omission or mistake.
Tribunal’s Decision
After hearing both sides, the appellate tribunal analyzed the facts carefully:
It was noted that the original return did not claim rebate u/s 87A, which qualifies as an omission.
The tribunal distinguished the facts of this case from the Wipro case, stating the Supreme Court ruling does not apply here.
The tribunal cited the Bombay High Court’s judgment in Chamber of Tax Consultant v. DGIT (System) [2025] 473 ITR 85, which supported the assessee's right to claim rebate u/s 87A even via a revised return.
Final Verdict:
The tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the Assessing Officer to grant the rebate of ?21,350 under section 87A to the assessee.
Income Tax Case Law Thejaswini Jakkaraju Versus ITO
Citation-2025 TAXONATION 666 (ITAT-BANGALORE) (Click here ot read full judgement)
SUBSCRIBE GST & INCOME TAX E-LIBRARY (INDIA'S HIGHEST CASE LAW DATA)
FOR MORE UPDATE ON GST/ IT JOIN OUR FREE WHATSAPP GROUP BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK https://chat.whatsapp.com/C8VB6F6VHme3A061UDQKhj
