2025 (6) TMI 811

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....61 [the Act] dated 20.5.2024 by the DDIT, CPC, Bengaluru [ld. AO] was dismissed. 2. The assessee is aggrieved and has preferred the following grounds of appeal:- "1. The impugned intimation passed by the Deputy Director of Income Tax, CPC Bangalore (Learned Officer) and CIT(A), to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant, is not justified in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Learned Officer and CIT(A) has exceeded jurisdiction in incorporating adjustment which is not covered within the scope of section 143(1)/154 of the Act. 3. The impugned intimation without granting an opportunity to be heard is against the principles of natural justice and is liable to be quashed in its entirety. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to the extent it is against the Appellant, be quashed and the relief sought to be granted." 3. The brief facts of the case show that assessee is an individual earning salary and income from other sources. She filed return of income on 1.7.2022 at a total income of Rs. 4,86,100 under old regime. Subsequently the assessee filed a revised return of income on 12.8.2022 declaring total income of Rs. 7,53,980 and opted for taxation under the provisions of section 115BAC and paid taxes. 4. The original return was processed by DDIT, CPC, Bengaluru, by passing the intimation u/s. 143(1) on 9.8.2022 accepting the return of income. 5. As there was an error in claiming the refund, the assessee filed the revised return. This revised return was....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act, which was not available in the new regime, but available in the old regime, should be allowed to the assessee. He further submitted that when the assessee has filed the original return of income, what are the claims available to the assessee under the old regime are mentioned therein and same have been allowed to the assessee while processing the original return of income. But when the revised return was filed claiming deduction u/s. 115BAC of the Act, the assessee was denied the new tax regime benefit as well as denied the benefit available under the old tax regime. Therefore, the order of the ld. CIT(A) in not considering the same is not correct. 8. The ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of....