Rectification of Error in IT Appeal Form 35

[Guest]

We are a small IT company. The AO issued a demand order u/s 143(3) for AY 2012-13. The demand order had many mistakes. We raised these mistakes with the AO and CIT, and as a result the demand order was corrected and a revised demand order issued u/s 154. We then filed an appeal with the CIT (Appeals) against the revised demand. In the Form 35 for appeals, there is a column that asks to fill the Section of the order and its date against which the appeal is being filed. This was filled as Section 154 by us (along with the date of the revised order).

Now the appeal has come for hearing. The CIT (Appeals) has taken the stand that we should have mentioned Section 143(3) in Form 35 instead of Section 154, and he is is going to reject the appeal on this ground. He is not willing to accept our contention that at best this is just a mistake which does not change any facts of the case, and which can be taken on record and corrected based on a letter we can give to this affect. The appeal rejection order is not yet passed.

Our appeal came for hearing after one year. A rejection would mean further delays. Is there any case law where such a mistake has been condoned? After-all there is a mechanism for mistakes made by the IT Department to be corrected u/s 154. How does a tax-payer correct a simple mistake made in Form 35?

AI Summary

IT Company Risks Appeal Rejection for Citing Wrong Section; Seeks Amendment to Correct Clerical Error on Form 35 A small IT company faced an issue with an appeal filed using Form 35 after a demand order was revised under Section 154 by the Assessing Officer (AO). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) plans to reject the appeal because the company cited Section 154 instead of Section 143(3) in the form. The company argues this is a minor error that should be correctable without affecting the case's facts. Forum participants suggest searching for case laws that condone such errors and recommend filing a petition to amend the appeal, emphasizing that clerical errors should be correctable.