TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 239
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Id. "CIT(A)" failed to appreciate that due to typographical error in the return of income the assessee had wrongly offered long term capital gain at Rs. 25,66,288/- instead of correct amount of Rs. 11,97,893/- and that the said error constituted "mistake apparent from record" in terms of section 154 of the "Act" which mistake was rectifiable u/s 154 of the "Act". 3. BECAUSE order passed by the authorities below are unjust and contrary to Circular no. 014(XL-35)/1955 dated 11.04.1955, wherein CBDT has long back laid down that the Officers of the Department must not take advantage of ignorance of the assessee as to his rights and it is the duty of officers of the Department to assist to assessee in the matter of claiming and securing relief as per law. 4. BECAUSE the Id. "CIT(A)" has grossly erred in not considering the case authorities relied upon by the assessee in support of his claim of rectification and on a due consideration of the decision rendered in the said authorities, the appellant's claim of rectification of typographical error in the return of income deserved to be allowed. 5. BECAUSE while upholding the rectification order, the ld. "CIT(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he account on e-filing portal was within the individual reach of the assessee only and it was the assessee who had entered the particulars of income while filing the ITR. The ld. Assessing Officer submitted that the assessee had sufficient time to file a revised return under section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act to make any corrections to the particulars of income. He found the case laws submitted by the assessee to be distinguishable from the facts of the case and he held that the matter does not fall under the purview of section 154 of the Act as the mistake was not apparent on the record. Accordingly, he rejected the submissions made by the assessee. 3. Aggrieved with the said rejection of his rectification request, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), NFAC. Before the ld. CIT(A), NFAC it was submitted that first of all the ld. Assessing Officer did not pass the order within six months of filing of rectification application as per the provisions of section 154(8) and therefore, the order passed by the assessee was time barred, bad in law and void ab initio. Without prejudice to this, it was submitted that a rectification request under section 154(1) was allowed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aggrieved at such dismissal of his appeal and has accordingly come before us. Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. (hereinafter referred to as the ld. AR) submitted that, by mistake, the assessee had declared the entire capital gains on the sale of a property, while the entire property did not belong to him but also belonged to his cousin Shyama Keshwani. His cousin also declared the entire capital gain in her returns. Subsequently, she had filed a rectification application under section 154 claiming only 50% share. Copies of her computation of income, intimation order, application under section 154, revised computation and the various orders passed by the ld. Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) (wherein these rectification requests have been rejected) were filed in support of the contention. It was submitted that a genuine and bonafide mistake had been committed by the assessee in the filing of his return but the Department could not take advantage of that and bring more tax into the hands of the assessee than was due from the assessee. The law was quite clear that the State could not enrich itself and collect taxes except as per the provisions of law. Since the assessee was only owner of half ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....come Tax (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), he was prohibited from entertaining new claims. The ld. CIT(A) has held that since there was no mistake in the order of the ld. Assessing Officer, there was nothing that could be rectified under section 154. However, we note that in the case of Dinumantiben Damjibhai Shilu vs. ITO (supra), the ITAT Rajkot Bench had held that where there were apparent and obvious mistakes in the returns filed by the assessee which were brought to the notice of the ld. Assessing Officer after receiving intimation and which mistake, on merits, the ld. Assessing Officer admitted too also, the assessee's claim of rectification under section 154 could not be rejected. Further, the ITAT Rajkot Bench in the case of Smt. Chandrikaben Thakarshibhai Lanqhnoia vs. ITO (supra) has pointed out that in a case where a typographical error was committed in filing of the e-Return, that the assessee had not made any new claim or deduction which required it to file a revised return but rather there was a typographical error which was a clear cut of mistake apparent from the record and the same was curable/rectifiable under section 154 of the Act. In the case of Poorvanchal Vikas Founda....