Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an original return of income and later a revised return claiming a rebate under Section 87A. The rebate was denied in the intimation processing the revised return. The assessee's appeal against this denial was dismissed by the CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee's failure to claim the Section 87A rebate in the original return constituted an error or omission, justifying the filing of a revised return. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Chamber of Tax Consultant v. DGIT.
Key Issues
Whether the revised return claiming Section 87A rebate was validly filed when the original return did not claim this rebate, and whether the denial of rebate by the AO and CIT(A) was justified.
Sections Cited
87A, 143(1), 154, 115BAC
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI
This appeal is filed by Thejaswini Jakkaraju (the assessee/appellant) for the assessment year 2024-25 against the appellate order passed by the Addl.CIT(Appeals)-1, Jaipur [ld. CIT(A)] dated 24.12.2024 wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed u/s. 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] dated 24.9.2024 by the CPC, Bangalore was dismissed.
The assessee is aggrieved and is in appeal.
The brief facts of the case show that assessee filed original return of income on 22.6.2024 which was processed on 30.6.2024 at the same income. Subsequently on 11.7.2024, assessee revised its return of income which was processed on 24.9.2024 claiming rebate u/s. 87A of Rs.21,350. In the intimation, the above rebate was denied. Aggrieved with the same, assessee preferred before the ld. CIT(A).
The appeal was delayed which was required to be filed on 24.10.2024, but was filed on 27.11.2024. The reason for the delay mentioned by the assessee was that he filed a rectification application u/s. 154 of the Act, but such rectification application was not attended to and therefore assessee approached the Ld. CIT (A) by filing this appeal. The delay was condoned. The appellant also made written submissions. The ld. CIT (A) held that assessee has revised return of income. The revision of return of income is available only when an error or omission in the original return is found. The assessee opted from the new tax regime to old tax regime is not an error or an omission which would have allowed the assessee to file revised return and therefore revised return cannot be filed. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.
The ld. AR submitted that assessee has failed to claim tax rebate under the provisions of section 87A which is an error and omission in the original return of income and therefore revision of return is proper. He further submitted that even in the new regime or old regime, there is no difference in the claim of rebate u/s. 87A of the Act. He referred to the provisions of section 115BAC to show that relief u/s. 87A is available in both the regimes and therefore rejection of return of income of the assessee claiming such rebate is not proper. He further submitted that the provisions of section 143(1)(a) also do not refer to the adjustment on account of relief u/s. 87A of the Act. Therefore, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is not valid.
The ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the ld. lower authorities.
We have carefully considered the rival contentions. The facts show that assessee filed original return of income claiming benefit under the old regime on 22.6.2024. It was processed u/s. 143(1) on 30.6.2024. There is no adjustment under that intimation. However, the assessee subsequently has filed return of income on 11.7.2024 wherein assessee claimed rebate u/s. 87A of the Act amounting to Rs.21,350. This was processed on 24.9.2024 and it was denied to the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) held that as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v Wipro Ltd., revised return cannot be filed to convert the original return into loss return in the absence of any omission or mistake. I find that the above judgment does not apply to the facts of the present case for the reason that there is error and omission in the original return of income of not claiming rebate u/s. 87A of the Act. I find that this issue is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chamber of Tax Consultant v. DGIT (System) [2025] 473 ITR 85 wherein the claim u/s. 87A is allowed. In view of the above decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, assessee is entitled to rebate u/s. 87A of the Act. Accordingly, I direct the ld. AO to allow rebate u/s. 87A to the assessee amounting to Rs.21,350. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.