TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 1739
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he office of the appellant's CA. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the mistake in reporting Rs. 2,79,79,26,466/- in Schedule CG was a bona fide typographical error made by the office of the appellant's CA while filing the return of income. The mistake was clearly explained and demonstrated in the rectification applications, but both the Ld. AO and CIT(A) ignored all submissions backed by evidences. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not allowing the appellant's right to submit additional evidence under Rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1962, including copy of demat account ledger and bank statements, to demonstrate the nature of the mistake, thereby denying the appellant a fair opportunity to present her case. The Ld. CIT(A) has also ignored the audited final accounts alongwith audit report u/s 44AB of the I. T. Act, 1961 filed in this case which correctly depicts the assessee's financial transactions for the year. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by holding that the error did not constitute a mistake apparent from the record under Section 154 without recognizing that the impugned adjustment made by CPC was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... undetected at the time of uploading the return. The same was not accepted by the CPC, Bangalore and intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act was issued on 16.11.2021, wherein, an addition of Rs. 2,79,79,26,466/- was made on account of LTCG and consequently a demand of Rs. 42,13,17,560/- was raised against the assessee. 3.2. The assessee filed two separate rectification petitions u/s 154 of the Act, one on the Income Tax Portal on 11.12.2022 and the other to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), Ward 2(1), Gurgaon vide letter dated 12.12.2022. In the said rectification application, it was submitted that "At the time of filing of the Income Tax Return an amount of Rs. 2,79,79,26,466/- was wrongly mentioned in Schedule No.5 (Schedule CG) and no impact was shown in the software at the time of preparation of the Income Tax Return. Further, it was submitted that the amount which was inserted wrongly and unintentionally did not come to notice while the return was uploaded. The assessee also filed a copy of Transaction Sheet (Ledger Account) with the brokers Zerodha Commodities Pvt. Ltd and HDFC Securities Ltd. alongwith summary of Transactions, Bank statements, and copy of Tax Audit rep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m. During the year, the Appellant has informed that she incurred losses of Rs. 30,56, 1021- through F&O and treated this loss as a business loss. While filing the income tax return in Form No. ITR-3, under Schedule CG in column 5(a) Rs. 2,79,79,26,466/- has wrongly been shown as LTCG under section 112A. The appellant claims that even in the computation of taxable income, this amount was not shown, and the software has also not picked up this item wrongly reported income for levy of tax. The Appellant has stated that she has not earned any Long-Term Capital Gain during the year and this figure has been mentioned wrongly while filing the income tax return. The Appellant claims to have responded online to CPC, Bengaluru twice; once on dated 16-11-2022 and thereafter on 10-02-2022 on the Portal of Income Tax Department for incorrect levy of tax and disagreed with the demand. The appellant has filed an application for rectification before the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as JAO) on 12/12/2022. The same was rejected by the JAO vide order dated 22/06/2023. On going through the order, it is seen that the JAO has observed as under: - "Please refer to yo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation for additional evidence sought to be admitted is not tenable. The same is rejected & TAX DEPP The Grounds of appeal raised by the appellant and the submission made has been reproduced in the opening paragraphs of this order. The Grounds raised are decided as under: - (i) Ground (1): - "That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order passed by Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) is bad in law, violative of principles of natural justice and void ab-initio." The appellant has not made any specific reference to any fact of the case or position of law to conclude that the order of rejection of its application u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act was bad in law and passed in violation of principles of natural justice. It is seen from the order passed that appellant had made a similar application before the CPC, Bangalore on 11/12/2022. The said application was disposed of on the same day. As such, the appellant's request for restoring her returned income had been examined decided in past. The appellant was required to file any appeal against the said order passed on 11/12/2022. The appellant has chosen to file a fresh rectification applicat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it of a business trust. This figure is subsequently included in the aggregation of the Long- Term Capital Gain eared from all sources at Sr No (14) of Schedule CG, Part B and in Schedule CG, Part C. Thus, it is clear that the appellant in a valid return filed u/s 139(1) of the I T Act has disclosed the amount of Rs 2,79,79,26,466/- as Long-Term Capital Gain earned from sale of a long-term capital asset being an equity share in a company or a unit of an equity-oriented fund or a unit of a business trust. In the circumstances, the CPC while processing the return has included this LTCG in the aggregation of total income in the Computation. The same would fall in the category of an arithmetical error while aggregating income from different sources under the Income Tax Act. The appellant in its submission has claimed that this figure was not picked up by the e-filing software at the time of preparation of the return and its subsequent validation of the return. This aspect has been examined from the return of income filed by the appellant. It is seen from the Computation of Income in Part B-T1(Computation of Income), that figure of Long-Term Capital Gain u/s 112A of the I. T. Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by a long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record-see Sidhamappav.. Commissioner- of Income-tax, Bombay (2). The power of the officers mentioned in S. 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to correct "any mistake apparent from the record" is (1) [1960] 1 S.C.R. 890." In the case of Town VividoddeshaSahakariBhandara... vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Tumkur, the Hon'ble ITAT, Bangalore in ITA No 1089/Bang/2023 held as under: - "the issue is highly debatable and by no stretch of imagination can be termed as a mistake apparent on the record. Only an obvious and patent mistake which can be established not by a long drawn process of reasoning alone can be subjected to rectification proceedings u/s. 154 of the Act. In this case, there is nothing on record to suggest that the assessee had violated the principles of mutuality and has been dealing with non-members. Therefore, we are of the view that the issue raised in this appeal is not a mistake apparent on record which is amenabl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as elaborated above) and needs to be quashed. The ground raised is repetitive in nature and has been discussed in sub-para (i) above. The substance of the appellant's appeal has been examined in the forgoing and the contentions made were found to be inconsistent with the factual and legal position on the issue. Hence, this ground raised also fails along with other grounds raised. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is DISMISSED." 5. Against the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. The ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the Ld. CIT(A) and referred to the written submission filed on page no.1 to 6 of the paper book and supporting documents from page nos. 7 to 233 of the paper book. The Ld. AR submitted that due to typographical error by the Chartered Accountant of the assessee in reporting an amount of Rs. 279,68,49,390/- in Schedule CG (LTCG), the assessee should not be taxed in respect of the said amount and only her real income should be taxed. He, therefore, submitted that typographical error in reporting of the figures in Schedule 'CG' (LTCG) amounting to Rs. 279,6....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../- in Schedule CG (LTCG) of her return for AY 2020-21 was an inadvertent typographical error is found to be correct, then the AO will delete the addition of Rs. 279,79,26,466/- and accept her return loss of Rs. 10,70,654/-. 8.1. In this regard, the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) that such an error will not constitute a mistake apparent from record on the ground that the total income under the head capital gains was enhanced by the CPC in the order u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 16.12.2021 on the basis of entry of Rs. 279,79,26,466/- in Schedule CG (LTCG) submitted by the assessee in her return of income for AY 2020-21. The same has been carefully considered but not found justified. It is held that any inadvertent misreporting of any income in the return of income filed by an assessee and which is suitably explained by the assessee amounts to a mistake apparent from record and is rectifiable under the provisions of section 154 of the Act. Further, while verifying the affidavit and other contentions of the assessee, the AO should also keep in mind that the assessee can be taxed only on the real income and should not be taxed on income due to inadvertent mistake made by the Chartered Acco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Consideration Price (Rs.) 0 : (Zero) First Party : RASMI RANJAN JATI Second Party : Not Applicable Stamp Duty Paid By : RASMI RANJAN JATI TARY PUBL LON MANJU GUPTA IT.O * Rego. No. 2164 Expiry Date" 17-03-2027 VT Stamp Duty Amount(Rs.) 100 (One Hundred only) 2100 11524806969993W Please write or type below this line AFFIDAVIT I, Rasmi Ranjan Jati, son of Late Narayan Jati, aged about 45 years, residing at K-8, Ground Floor, Jungpura Extension, New Delhi-110014, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under: * NOTA 1. 7 Accountant by profession having ICAI membership No. 51397. Lam a Charterde MANJU GUPTA Brah - Rego No. 2164 ! Expiry Date' -17:03-2027 Statutory Pay a .- Blung Mobile App of Stock Holding o render it inwalid Document 5 2. That I was duly engaged by Ms. Monica Capoor (PAN: AAIPC5019P), aged about 75 years, residing at G - 32, Ridgewood Estate, DLF Phase - IV, Gurugram, Haryana - 122008 for the purpose of preparing and filing her income tax returns for the AY 2020- 21 (FY 2019-20). 3. That while filing her income tax return for AY 2020-21 (FY 2019-20), there was an inadvertent typographical....