SANJU KUMARI,HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. ITO WARD DALHOUSIE, HIMACHAL PRADESH

In this appeal the appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal:

That on the facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy AddI. CIT(A), NFAC in Appeal No. ADDL/JCIT (A)-9 MUMBAI/10020/2017-18 has erred in passing order dtd. 23.03.2026 in contravention of provisions of S. 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act"). 2. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the Worthy Addl. CIT(A) has erred in failing to appreciate that the excess salary figure reflected in ITR of Rs. 51,46,690/- was the result of an inadvertent clerical error, namely, insertion of an extra zero in the salary column, and that the correct salary income of Rs. 5,14,669/-stood duly evidenced by Form 16, Form 26AS, bank statements furnished by the appellant.

That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the Worthy Addl. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that no tax can be levied or recovered on income that was never earned, and that the impugned demand of Rs. 16,75,100/- is unsustainable in law and on facts as it is based upon an incorrect figure inadvertently entered in the ITR. 4. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the order passed by Ld. AO and then by Worthy Addl. CIT(A) deserves to be quashed since the same have been passed without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 5. That the appellant craves for any addition, deletion or amendment in the grounds of appeal on or before the disposal of the same.

In the present case the appellnat claimed to be a salaried employee who earned a salary of Rs. 5,14,669/- in the relevant previous year. However while filing the return of income, an extra zero was added and the salary income was incorrectly reflected as Rs. 51,46,690/-. A demand of Rs 16,75,100/- was created. The assessee filed application under section 154 before the AO pointing out the mistake of showing salary income in the return of income filed in ITR-1 and requested for her salary income to be taken at Rs. 5,14,669/- The AO rejected the appellant’s application on the ground that CPC had only accepted and processed the return of income filed by the appellant and there was no mistake apparent from record. 4. Against the said order under section 154 the appellant filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The appellant submitted Form – 16 before the Ld. CIT(A) reflecting gross salary of Rs. 5,14,669/-. The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the appeal on the ground that there was no mistake apparent from record. 5. The Ld. AR argued that the Tribunal is not constrained by the fact that mistake committed by the assessee in filing the return of income as the powers of Tribunal have been defined in widest possible term under section 254 (1) of the Act which is reproduced here under: “ 254. (1) The Appellate Tribunal may, after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit.”

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd. reported in 229 ITR 383 has held that the Tribunal powers have been defining under section 254(1) in the widest possible term. Therefore in the interest of justice we consider it appropriate to remand the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for verification of the actual salary received by the appellant. If the actual salary received is as claimed by the appellant, the necessary relief may be granted and only that amount may be assessed to tax. 7. In the result, appeal of the Appellant is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 12/08/2026