Background

In the fiscal year 2024–25, taxpayer Thejaswini Jakkaraju filed her original income tax return on 22 June 2024, under the old tax regime. Due to an oversight, she omitted claiming the Section 87A rebate, worth ₹21,350. Realizing the mistake, she promptly filed a revised return on 11 July 2024, explicitly claiming the rebate. casemine.com+12taxguru.in+12taxscan.in+12

However, the Central Processing Centre (CPC), Bangalore, processed the revised return in September 2024 and denied the rebate—reasoning that once processed under Section 143(1), subsequent revisions claiming new deductions were inadmissible. The denial went up to the CIT (Appeals), who upheld the CPC’s decision. taxscan.in+1taxguru.in+1

Appeal to ITAT Bangalore

Refusing to accept the denial, Thejaswini appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bangalore. Her key arguments:

1. Omitting the rebate was a clerical error or omission, which the law permits to rectify via a revised return.

2. Section 87A is available under either tax regime and cannot be denied arbitrarily.

3. Section 143(1)(a) validations should not prevent legitimate rebates being processed. taxscan.in

ITAT’s Verdict

On 1 July 2025, a single-judge bench (Vice President Prashant Maharishi) ruled in favor of Thejaswini. The tribunal highlighted:

• The omission to claim Section 87A indeed amounts to a valid error or omission, warranting a revised return.

• ITAT drew from precedent—especially the Bombay High Court decision in Chamber of Tax Consultants vs DGIT (System)—which affirms that such rebates can be claimed even post initial processing. economictimes.indiatimes.com+11taxscan.in+11taxguru.in+11

Consequently, ITAT allowed the ₹21,350 rebate and set aside the CIT(A)’s order. It also directed the Assessing Officer to process the revised return accordingly. taxscan.in+1taxguru.in+1

Why This Case Matters

• Taxpayer Relief: It establishes that genuine mistakes in claiming rebates like Section 87A can be corrected—even after CPC processing—through revised returns.

• Precedential Strengthening: ITAT reaffirmed that rebates aren’t tied to initial processing alone, echoing Bombay High Court rulings on Section 87A.

• Encourages Vigilance: Even if taxpayers miss something in their first filing, this judgment encourages timely correction within the law.

Key Takeaways for Taxpayers

Final Thoughts

The ITAT’s judgment in Thejaswini Jakkaraju vs ITO is a beacon for honest taxpayers who inadvertently miss out on deductions. Filing a revised return within legal timeframes preserves the right to claim entitled rebates—even post-processing. This case reinforces trust in India's tax system, ensuring procedural fairness and compliance flexibility.

📌 Disclaimer: This is a general overview and not legal advice. For personalized guidance, consult a tax professional.

Let me know if you’d like a deeper dive into Section 87A, revised return timelines, or related case law!