2022 (9) TMI 1373 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification u/s 154 - income to be revised under the rectification petition - assessee that while e-filing the original Return of Income by mistake the gross total income is typed as Rs. 55,40,001/- and after paying taxes of Rs. 30,629/-. - Revised Return Filled for rectification - rectification petition was dismissed by the assessing officer on the ground that Revised Return ought to have been filed within time limit prescribed under the Act - HELD THAT - In the present case at hand, the assessee has not made any new claim or deduction which require to file Revised Return. The grievance of the assessee is that the typographical error which has happened while filing the e-return. Thus, this is a clear case of mistake apparent on record which is very well curable/rectifiable u/s. 154 - Thus both the assessing officer and the Ld. CIT(A) has not properly appreciated the provisions of law and acted arbitrarily against the simple and genuine case of typographical mistake. Lower Authorities ought to have considered the Form No. 16 issued by the School Authorities as well as the bank statements provided by the assessee, to show her salary income from the teaching profession. However none of the above records have been considered by the lower authorities and arbitrarily derived the assessee to come for the second stage of appeal before us. This kind of arbitrariness should be avoided in such a simple genuine case, where the assesse proved establishing the typographical mistake in the efiling return. Therefore the rejection of 154 petition is hereby set aside and we direct to delete the additions made in the hands of the assessee. - Appeal of assessee allowed.

Issues:
1. Validity of rectification petition under section 154 for typographical error in income tax return.
2. Rejection of rectification petition by Assessing Officer.
3. Dismissal of appeal by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
4. Delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal.
5. Consideration of typographical error and rectification under section 154.
6. Interpretation of Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in Goetze (India) Ltd. case.
7. Failure to file Revised Return within prescribed time limit.
8. Consideration of Form No. 16 and bank statements as evidence of correct income.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed by the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the assessment order under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2013-14 due to a typographical error in the income tax return.

2. The Assessee, a school teacher, mistakenly declared an income of Rs. 54,97,370 instead of Rs. 4,97,370 in the original return. The Centralized Processing Centre demanded tax on the incorrect income, leading the Assessee to file a revised return correcting the error, which was deemed invalid.

3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the rejection of the rectification petition, citing the need for filing the revised return within the prescribed time limit, as per the judgment in the Goetze (India) Ltd. case by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

4. The Assessee appealed before the Tribunal with a delay of 118 days, which was explained by the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the extension of time limits by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

5. The Assessee argued that the typographical error was a genuine mistake, and the rectification under section 154 should have been allowed without the need for a revised return, as no new claim or deduction was made.

6. The Tribunal noted that the assessing officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to consider the typographical error as a mistake apparent on record, which could be rectified under section 154, especially since no new claim or deduction was involved.

7. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of considering evidence such as Form No. 16 and bank statements provided by the Assessee to support the correct income, highlighting the need to avoid arbitrariness in such genuine cases.

8. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection of the rectification petition and directing the deletion of the additions made in the Assessee's hands, recognizing the typographical error as a curable mistake under section 154.

---

← Previous Next →