ANIL GOYAL,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD 13(5), HYDERABAD

It transpires at the outset that the assessee’s sole substantive grievance canvassed in the instant appeal challenges correctness of both the lower authorities’ action declining his rectification application on the ground of double assessment of his salary income derived from Air Force services that does not amount to an apparent error u/s 154 of the Act. A perusal of the instant case file prima facie suggests that this issue of double assessment of the income from salary indeed forms subject matter of rectification is AY 2013-14 Shri Anil Goyal, Hyd. nothing else but appropriate computation only so as to determine correct taxable income of an assessee. I also quote hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision T.S. Balram vs. Volkart Brothers (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC) defining the contours of sec.154 jurisdiction that purpose thereof is to undo any patent error only. Faced with this situation, I deem it fit and proper to restore assessee’s impugned grievance to the file of Assessing Officer for his necessary reconciliation as per law. Ordered accordingly.