ASHOK KUMAR,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(2)(4), BENGALURU

The ITA No. 241/Bang/2026 was the appeal filed on 24/01/2026 physically whereas the ITA No. 514/Bang/2026 was filed by the assessee through online. Both the appeals are numbered as ITA No. 241/Bang/2026 and ITA No. 514/Bang/2026. When the appeal in ITA No. 241/Bang/2026

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income. In the return of income, the assessee had declared the income from salary and interest under the head income from other sources. The assessee had also reported the cash deposits made during the demonetization period. Thereafter the case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notice u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were issued. The assessee had explained that the cash deposits are the amounts received from sundry debtors in the earlier years. The Ld.CPC had not accepted the explanation and treated the cash deposits as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. The salary income declared under the head income from other sources was added separately under the head income from salaries. As against the said order, the assessee had filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Mistakenly, the assessee had mentioned in form 35 about the section under which the order appealed against was passed as 143(1) whereas the correct provision was 143(3) of the Act. The assessee mentioned the date of order as 11/12/2019 instead of 10/12/2019. The assessee had correctly mentioned the order number r related to the order dated 10/12/2019 which was passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) pointed out the said mistake of wrong section as well as the date of the order and rejected the appeal by not accepting the explanation offered by the assessee.

As against the said order, the present appeal has been filed by the assessee before this Tribunal.

At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee had mistakenly mentioned the section as 143(1) instead of 143(3) and also

The Ld.DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record.

We have considered the assessment order as well as the form 35 filed by the assessee. In form 35, the assessee had correctly mentioned the order number but mistakenly mentioned the section as 143(1) instead of 143(3) of the Act. Similarly, the date has also been mentioned as 11/12/2019 instead of 10/12/2019. These are all the mistakes which can be rectified by the assessee if the Ld.CIT(A) has given sufficient notice to the assessee. In the present case, no such communication was sent to the assessee but while deciding the appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) had mentioned the said mistakes and dismissed the appeal as not maintainable.

We do not agree with the above said view of the Ld.CIT(A) for the reason that the assessee had correctly mentioned the order number which reads as follows:

In such circumstances, the Ld.CIT(A) on technical grounds ought not to have rejected the appeal as not maintainable. We therefore set aside the

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 514/Bang/2026 is dismissed and the appeal in ITA No. 241/Bang/2026 is allowed for statistical purposes.