9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 167X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 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 app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ling the returns, the petitioner had inadvertently added an extra '0' (zero) in his total salary income. Thereafter, an intimation dated 08.12.2010 was sent to the petitioner by the respondent demanding a sum of Rs. 7,62,836/- towards tax liabilities. However in the said intimation, the respondent had not traced out any of the defects. Thereafter, in the year 2013, the petitioner had once again received an intimation from the respondent for the aforesaid demand of a sum of Rs. 7,62,836/-. Hence, the petitioner had contacted his Auditor immediately and handed over the file and instructed him to appear before the concerned officer for the purpose of explaining the reasons as to how the petitioner is not liable to pay the said amount, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplication within a period of 4 years from the date of assessment order. In such view of the matter, the rectification application filed by the petitioner is barred by limitation. 8. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he had made representation in the year 2013 itself and in continuation of the said proceeding only, he had filed the rectification application dated14.09.2022. Hence, it is not barred by limitation. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent and also perused the materials available on record. 10. 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. 26,10,5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
