Tribunal overturns tax return rejection due to typographical error, stresses evidence importance.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning the rejection of the rectification petition under section 154 of the Income Tax Act for a typographical error in the income tax return. The Assessee's argument that the error was genuine and did not involve new claims or deductions was accepted. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of considering evidence such as Form No. 16 and bank statements to support the correct income. The decision highlighted the need to rectify apparent mistakes without arbitrariness, ultimately directing the deletion of the additions made in the Assessee's assessment.

---

---

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.

---

---