What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found the assessee's claim of a typographical error plausible and that an assessee should not suffer due to a hyper-technical approach. The matter was set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication.

The assessee's return of income contained a typographical error, showing 'other income' as Rs. 11,20,506/- instead of Rs. 11,02,506/-. The Assessing Officer processed the return as filed, and the CIT(Appeals) upheld this, stating a revised return was necessary for correction.

What were the issues?

Whether a typographical error in the return of income can be rectified without a revised return, and if the appellate authority should consider such errors.

Manoj Kumar, Roorkee vs ITO | ITAT Varanasi 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Appellant: Shri Tilak Raj, Adv. (VC)

For Respondent: Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr. DR (VC)

Hearing: 25.06.2026

ITA No.228/DDN/2026 MANOJ KUMAR, ROORKEE

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.228/DDN/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18 MANOJ KUMAR, Vs. ITO, Azad Nagar, Roorkee, Ayakar Bhawan, Roorkee, Uttarakhand 247667. Uttarakhand 247667. PAN No. ANDPK1201D Appellant Respondent

Assessee by Shri Tilak Raj, Adv. (VC) Revenue by Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr. DR (VC)

Date of hearing: 25.06.2026 Pronouncement on 03.07.2026 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. This appeal arises from order dated 16.02.2025, passed by Ld. Addl./JCIT (Appeals)-1, Hyderabad, u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”). In this case, the assessee filed his return of income with an error in terms of indicating “other income” as Rs.11,20,506/- instead of Rs.11,02,506/-. The assessee has claimed that due to a typographical error, one zero was added after the figures “112” leading to an unintended enhancement to the returned income. The assessee approached the first appellate authority with this grievance,

ITA No.228/DDN/2026 MANOJ KUMAR, ROORKEE where he could not succeed on the basis of a finding that the processing u/s 143(1) of the Act was done on the basis of the returned of income filed by the assessee and in the absence of a revised return the correction, as requested for by the assessee, could not be done.

The aggrieved assessee has filed the present appeal with the following grounds of appeal: -

“1. That the impugned order of learned CIT(Appeal) NFAC dated 16/02/2026 U/s 250 is bad in law. The appellate authority failed to appreciate typographical mistake which was clear from the record & income return filed. 2. That on facts and law and the circumstances of the case the assessment framed on Rs. 1664380 actually contains addition of Rs.1008000 wrongly made in other Income as under:- Other Income filed Rs. 1120506 Actual other income & interest etc. Rs. 1008000 Difference Rs. 1008000 It all erupt in due to office typing error where one zero was added. 3. That the Record itself indicate that it was mistakenly added which could be rectified either by filing revised return or in appeal proceedings. 4. That the past record of the appellant make it clear and computation chart provides the error, where the tax due was deposited u/s 140A. 5. That the law is settled that one has to be assessed on real income and not otherwise created due to mistake. 6. That the learned CIT(Appeal) NFAC and A/O both did not consider the record properly and the computation filed along with return and hence the order U/s 250/143(1) is against law and facts of the case. 7. That the appellant craves leave to amend, add or delete any ground during the proceedings with the permission of the court.”

ITA No.228/DDN/2026 MANOJ KUMAR, ROORKEE 3. Before us the Ld. AR mentioned that the assessee’s income was massively enhanced due to the typographical error and even the tax was deposited on the actual income only. The Ld. AR requested that necessary directions may be given for carrying out the requisite rectification in the order u/s 143(1) of the Act.

3.1 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.

We have considered the submissions of Ld. AR/DR. It is seen that the contention of the assessee that due to a typographical error the return of income was artificially enhanced, appears to be plausible and it is felt that an assessee need not suffer due to a hyper-technical approach. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remand this matter back to the file of Ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication. It is directed that the assessee would file necessary evidences and documents before the Ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) in support of his claim that the correct income is considerably less than what has been filed as per the return of income. The Ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) would judicially consider the same and pass a speaking order.

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 03.07.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (ANUBHAV SHARMA) (SANJAY AWASTHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 3

ITA No.228/DDN/2026 MANOJ KUMAR, ROORKEE Dated: 03.07.2026 *Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S. Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI

MANOJ KUMAR,ROORKEE vs. ITO ROORKEE, ROORKEE

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments