Tribunal directs rectification of typographical error in tax return, emphasizing final assessment supersedes provisional.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and partly allowed the assessee's cross-objection, directing the A.O. to rectify the typographical error in the return filed under Section 172(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal emphasized that the final assessment under Section 143(3) superseded the provisional assessment under Section 172(4) in line with the Supreme Court decision, ensuring the correct taxable amount was considered.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Rectification of typographical error in the return filed under Section 172(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Admissibility and verification of the rectification application under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Impact of the final assessment under Section 143(3) on the provisional assessment under Section 172(4).
4. Applicability of the Supreme Court decision in A.S. Glittre D/5 I/S Garonne and Others vs. CIT.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Rectification of Typographical Error:
The assessee, Evergreen Shipping Agency (India) (P) Ltd. (ESA), acting as an agent for Evergreen Marine Corporation (Taiwan) Ltd. (EMC), filed a return under Section 172(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the voyage FAR SINGAPORE-003E, showing total freight and THC as Rs. 4,19,82,717.88. The assessee later claimed this was a typographical error and the correct amount should be Rs. 2,06,66,514/-. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) rejected the rectification application under Section 154, stating the order passed under Section 172(4) was correct and no provision existed for revising the return.

2. Admissibility and Verification of Rectification Application:
The CIT(A) considered the appeal against the rejection of the rectification application and directed the A.O. to verify whether the mistake pointed out by the assessee brought into tax something beyond the ambit of the return under Section 172(3). The CIT(A) emphasized that mathematical mistakes should not result in taxing amounts not taxable under the specific section. The CIT(A) instructed the A.O. to reduce any amount incorrectly included due to the typographical error.

3. Impact of Final Assessment under Section 143(3):
The assessee argued that the order under Section 172(4) was provisional and the final assessment under Section 143(3) accepted the correct total income, which included the amount of Rs. 2,06,66,514/-. The assessee cited the Supreme Court decision in A.S. Glittre D/5 I/S Garonne and Others vs. CIT, which held that the provisional assessment under Section 172(4) is suspended once a regular assessment is made under Section 143(3). The Tribunal agreed that the final assessment superseded the provisional order, rendering the latter unenforceable.

4. Applicability of Supreme Court Decision:
The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court decision, which established that once a regular assessment is made, the provisional assessment under Section 172(4) is suspended. The Tribunal found that the assessee's final assessment included the correct figures and directed the A.O. to verify and rectify the mistake. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s directive to the A.O. to verify the error and reduce any incorrect amounts.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and partly allowed the assessee's cross-objection, directing the A.O. to verify and rectify the typographical error. The Tribunal emphasized that the final assessment under Section 143(3) superseded the provisional assessment under Section 172(4), aligning with the Supreme Court's decision. The Tribunal's order ensured that the correct taxable amount was considered, rectifying the initial typographical error.

---