9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct before the ld. CPC which was not accepted. We have gone through the bank account summary of the assessee for the whole year which are enclosed wherein it is evident that assessee has actually received professional income from Power Tech Services only to the tune of Rs.7,62,444/- net of TDS. Hence, the addition that has been made due to punching error had resulted in a scenario of assessee getting taxed on an income which he had never earned. Assessee has also filed an affidavit in this regard admitting the punching error that had crept in while filling the income tax return. We find under similar circumstances, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal had an occasion to consider the negligible error that had crept in, in the electron ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lter, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal and submit further details and explanations at the time of hearing on the matters stated in the appeal. 4. Any other ground shall be prayed at the time of hearing. B) Tax effect relating to each Ground of appeal: Income from profession inadvertently considered as Rs. 81,00,051/- due to human error which leads to raising of an erroneous demand of Rs 22,32,323/-. 3. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The short point that is to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Revenue was justified in confirming the addition of Rs.72,90,000/- (Rs.81,00,051 Rs.8,10,051) towards income from profession of the assessee in the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de due to punching error had resulted in a scenario of assessee getting taxed on an income which he had never earned. The assessee has also filed an affidavit in this regard admitting the punching error that had crept in while filling the income tax return. This affidavit is enclosed in page 16 of the paper book. 3.2. We find under similar circumstances, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal had an occasion to consider the negligible error that had crept in, in the electronic filing of returns in the case of Shrikant Real Estates (P) Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer-4(3)(4), Mumbai reported in 140 ITD 155 wherein it was held as under:- 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities and the copy of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ernal P-24 of the return, the assessee has shown Short Term Capital Gains (iiia) special rate 10% income Rs. 2,65,853 tax thereon Rs. 26585/- which clearly establishes that the assessee has shown Short Term Capital Gains liable to be taxed at special rate of 10%. Accordingly, reversing the finding of the Ld. CIT(A), we direct the AO to allow credit of the Short Term Capital gains subject to special rate of tax as per provisions of Sec. 111A of the Act and rectify the intimation u/s. 143(1) accordingly. 3.3. In view of our aforesaid observations and respectfully following the decision of this Tribunal referred to supra, we direct the ld. AO to delete the addition made in the sum of Rs.72,90,000/- due to punching error. Accordingly, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
