2022 (2) TMI 983

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....order on the following solitary effective ground of appeal: "1) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. Assessing Officer has erred in determining total income at Rs. 39,42,980/- and also in rejecting the application u/s.154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 made for correction of the superfluous demand." 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee, a retired employee of State Bank of India had e-filed his return of income for assessment year 2010-11 on 24.07.2020, declaring a total income of Rs. 4,04,298/-, against which the tax liability of Rs. 15,306/- was reflected. Subsequently, a revised return of income was filed on 26.07.2010, disclosing an income of Rs. 40,42,980/-, against which the tax liability Rs. 15,306/- (as reflect....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rein involved a delay of 42 days. After considering the facts leading to the delay in filing of the appeal, the CIT(A), in all fairness, though condoned the same, but not finding favour with the contentions advanced by the assessee, therein, dismissed the appeal. 4. On a perusal of the order of the CIT(A), we find that it was observed by him that as the revised return that was e-filed by the assessee from his own e-filing account and was duly verified by him, therefore, the same could not have been ignored by the Assessing Officer/CPC. In the backdrop of his aforesaid observation, the CIT(A) was of the view that the action of the Assessing Officer in rejecting the application filed by assessee u/s 154 of the Act seeking rectification of a ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ot also remain oblivious of the fact that the gross total income of the assessee only comprises of salary income which was derived by him as an employee i.e. Special Assistant with State Bank of India, Branch Bilaspur. On a perusal of the "Form-16" (Page 5 & 6 of APB), we find that gross salary income of the assessee was reflected at Rs. 4,04,297.90. Backed by the aforesaid facts, we have a strong conviction that there is substance in the claim of the assessee that in his revised return of income the gross total income was wrongly stated at Rs. 40,42,980/- as against income of Rs. 4,04,298/- (as originally returned), which mistake had crept in by wrongly suffixing one "Zero" to the amount of the income as originally returned. Our aforesaid ....