INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. SUMIT KABRA, JAIPUR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR “SMC” BENCH, JAIPUR (PHYSICAL HEARING) BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRAKASH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No: 1422/JPR/2026 Assessment Year: 2025-26

Income Tax Officer Sumit Kabra Jaipur. 7/173, Vidhyadhar (Appellant) Vs Nagar, Jaipur. PAN:AGQPK4204N (Respondent)

CO. No. 10/JPR/2026 (Arising out of ITA No: 1422/JPR/2026) Assessment Year: 2025-26

Sumit Kabra Income Tax Officer 7/173, Vidhyadhar Jaipur. Nagar, Jaipur. Vs (Appellant) PAN:AGQPK4204N (Respondent

Assessee Represented: Ms. Shreya Sharda, C.A. Sh. Atharv Mundra, Adv. Revenue Represented: Mrs. Aarti Rawat, JCIT (Thr. V.C.) Date of hearing : 08-10-2026 Date of pronouncement : 22-10-2026 ORDER PER : KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- The Appellant- Income Tax Officer by filing aforesaid appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 30.03.2026 passed by

I.T.A No. 1422/JPR/2026 & 2 CO. No.10/JPR/2026 Page No Sumit Kabra

the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Guwahati [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Addl/JCIT(A)’] qua assessment year 2025-26 on the grounds inter-alia that:- ITA No. 1422/JPR/2026 (Revenue’s grounds)

“1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Addl/JCIT(A)-5, Chennai is justified in allowing the rebate u/s 87A of the Act, on STCG, when rebate u/s 87A of the Act is not available in respect of Income Tax payable on income chargeable to tax on special reates, which includes short term capital gain u/s 111A of the Act.?

I.T.A No. 1422/JPR/2026 & 3 CO. No.10/JPR/2026 Page No Sumit Kabra

that the case falls within any of the specified exceptions contained in paragraphs 3.1 OR 3.2 of CBDT Circular No. 05/2024 2 dated 15.03.2024. Unless the precise exception relied upon and the supporting competent- authority record are placed before the Honble Tribunal, the appeal involving tax effect substantially below the prescribed monetary limit is liable to be dismissed in limine under section 268A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 3. The learned Appellant-Revenue has erred in law and on facts in challenging the order of the learned ADDL/JCIT(A)-1, Guwahati, who correctly directed the Assessing Officer to allow the balance rebate of Rs. 19,892 under section 87A, since the Cross-Objector is a resident individual assessed under section 115BAC(1A) whose total income of Rs. 5,48,940 did not exceed Rs. 7,00,000 for Assessment Year 2025-26 4. The learned Appellant-Revenue has erred in challenging the allowance of rebate under section 87A in respect of tax payable on short-term capital gains under section 111A, although neither section 87A nor section 111A, as applicable to Assessment Year 2025-26, contained any express.restriction to that direct, whereas the Legislature had expressly enacted such a restriction in section 112A(6) 5. The learned Appellant Revenue has erred in challenging the Cross Objectors entitlement to rebate under section 87A notwithstanding that the relevant restriction was inserted subsequently by the Finance Act, 2025 with effect from 01.04.2026. The said amendment is expressly prospective and applies from Assessment Year 2026-27 and, therefore, cannot govern OR restrict the Cross- Objector entitlement for Assessment Year 2025-26 6. The learned Appellant Revenue has erred in law and on facts in preferring the present appeal, the very foundation of which is an adjustment made by the CPC beyond the limited jurisdiction conferred under section 143(1)(a), as the restriction of rebate under section 87A involved a debatable interpretation of sections 87A, 111A, 112A and 115BAC and could not have been made as a prima facie adjustment under section 143(1)(a)(i) to section 143(1)(a)(vi) by the learned CPC while processing the return under section 143(1) 7. The learned Appellant Revenue has erred in law and on facts in preferring the present appeal to sustain an adjustment which was made by the learned CPC without issuing the mandatory prior intimation and without 7 affording an effective opportunity to the Cross Objector as required under the first proviso to section 143(1)(a) before restricting the rebate claimed in the return, thereby violating the prescribed statutory procedure and the principles of natural justice 8. The learned Appellant-Revenue has erred in seeking to restore a system driven computation made by the CPC, although the configuration of the return processing utility, portal or software cannot override the plan statutory

I.T.A No. 1422/JPR/2026 & 4 CO. No.10/JPR/2026 Page No Sumit Kabra

provisions. The learned first appellate authority rightly adjudicated the claim according to the law applicable to assessment year 2025-26. 9. The cross-objector craves leave to add, amend, alter, substitute or withdraw any ground of cross objection at or before the time of hearing and further reserves the right under Rule 27 of the income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 to support the impugned appellate order on any ground decided against him, if necessary.” 3. Briefly stated, facts necessary for consideration and adjudication of the issued at hand are : Assessee’s return of income filed for A.Y. 2025-26 declaring total income at Rs. 5,48,940/- including Short Term Capital Gain (in short STCG) of Rs. 1,16,346/- at taxable u/s 111A of the Act and STCG of Rs. 30,430/- taxable u/s 112A of the Act was processed by the AO/CPC. The assessee has claimed the rebate of Rs. 25,000/- u/s 87A of the Act, which was disallowed to the extent of Rs. 19,892/- from the Income payable as STCG u/s 111A of the Act. 4. Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeal, who has allowed the appeal. Being aggrieved with the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), Revenue has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeal. 5. We have heard Ld. ARs for the assessee and Ld. DR for the Revenue and perused the record available on file. 6. Undisputedly total income of the assessee computed by the Assessing Officer for the year under consideration is Rs. 5,48,940/-

I.T.A No. 1422/JPR/2026 & 5 CO. No.10/JPR/2026 Page No Sumit Kabra

. It is also not in dispute that the total amount of addition/disallowance made by the AO/CPC is Rs. 19,892/- and as such leading to the total tax effect to the tune of Rs. 20,680/-.. 7. When the total tax effect in this case is Rs. 20,680/- well below mandatory limit of Rs. 60,00,000/- prescribed for filing the appeal by the Revenue before Income Tax Tribunal as per CBDT Circular 9/2024 dated 17.09.2024, the present appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable, hence liable to be dismissed. 8. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed being not maintainable and Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 22-10-2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PRAKASH) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Jaipur Dated:- 22/10/2026. *Santosh. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- 2. The Respondent- 3. CIT 4. CIT(A)

I.T.A No. 1422/JPR/2026 & 6 CO. No.10/JPR/2026 Page No Sumit Kabra

Asst. Registrar