2024 (1) TMI 167 - HC - Income Tax

Rectification of mistake - While filing the returns, the petitioner had inadvertently added an extra '0' (zero) in his total salary income - HELD THAT - In the present case, it appears that there is a mistake of mentioning the total income. The petitioner had erroneously mentioned his total income as a sum of Rs. 26,10,560/- instead of Rs. 2,61,056/-. However, it seems that the tax liability was calculated and paid by the petitioner only by taking the income as Rs. 2,61,056/-. Hence, it is only an apparent error on the face of the record and it is not that the petitioner had suppressed the material facts. This Court is of the view that it is the duty of the officer, who scrutinize the records, to bring the said error to the knowledge of the petitioner and rectify the same without any inconvenience to the petitioner. However, the officer, who scrutinized the records, had not applied his mind either while scrutinizing the income of the petitioner or his rectification application. Period of limitation - As in the present case, initially a rectification application was filed in the year 2013 and any such subsequent applications are only a reminder/continuation/representation of the original application for rectification filed in the year 2013. Thus, this Court directs the respondent to dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner in the year 2013, if it is available, otherwise, they shall dispose of the rectification application dated 14.09.2022 and 30.08.2023, which are filed in continuation as reminder of the aforesaid representation filed in the year 2013. Accordingly, respondent is directed to rectify the mistakes committed by the petitioner by taking into consideration of the application filed by the petitioner in the manner stated above and re-assess the income of the petitioner within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Summary

Issues involved:
The writ petition seeks rectification of a mistake apparent on record and deletion of a tax demand raised through an order. The main issues include erroneous mention of total income in returns, subsequent demands by the respondent, failure to rectify errors, and the issue of limitation in filing rectification applications.

Details of the Judgment:

Erroneous Mention of Total Income:
The petitioner mistakenly added an extra zero in his total salary income while filing returns, resulting in a demand of Rs. 7,62,836/- towards tax liabilities. However, the tax liability was calculated based on the correct income of Rs. 2,61,056/-. The court noted this as an apparent error on record, with no intent to suppress facts.

Failure to Rectify Errors:
Despite the petitioner's requests for rectification in 2013 and subsequent reminders in 2022 and 2023, the respondent had not taken steps to rectify the errors. The court emphasized the duty of the scrutinizing officer to rectify such errors without inconveniencing the petitioner.

Issue of Limitation in Filing Rectification Applications:
The respondent argued that the rectification application filed by the petitioner in 2022 was barred by limitation, as it should have been filed within 4 years from the date of the assessment order. In response, the petitioner contended that the 2022 application was a continuation of the original representation made in 2013, hence not barred by limitation.

Court's Decision:
The court directed the respondent to rectify the mistakes in consideration of the applications filed by the petitioner and reassess the income within 4 weeks. It emphasized that subsequent applications were reminders of the original representation in 2013. The writ petition was disposed of with no costs, and compliance was scheduled for reporting on 31.01.2024.