MANIK PRATAP GOLE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3468/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 June 2026AY 2022-239 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the addition was based on an erroneous disclosure in the return and not on evidence of actual receipt. The assessee provided bank statements, EPFO records, and an affidavit to support the claim of an inadvertent clerical error.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed an exemption of Rs. 9,60,000/- under Section 10(11) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was added back by the Assessing Officer due to lack of substantiation. The CIT(A) upheld this addition.

What were the issues?

Whether an addition can be sustained solely on the basis of a disclosure in the return of income when the assessee demonstrates it was an inadvertent error and no such amount was received.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(11),Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Gupta (virtually appeared)
Hearing: 17.06.2026Pronounced: 19.06.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3468/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) Manik Pratap Gole ITO Ward 42(2)(4) 403, Manas CHS Plot Kautilya Bhavan, No. 5, Thane, Belapur Vs. Mumbai-400 051 Rd Sector 6, Airoli, Mumbai-400708 PAN/GIR No. ALZPG0710D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Tarun Gupta (virtually appeared), Ld. AR Revenue by Shree Kumar C., Ld. DR Date of Hearing 17.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 19.06.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.01.2026 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)"], under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"], arising

2 ITA No. 3468/Mum/2026 Manik Pratap Gole

out of the assessment order dated 11.03.2024 passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Act for Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. The effective grievance of the assessee is against the action of the learned CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.9,60,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of an alleged claim of exemption under section 10(11) of the Act. 3. Briefly stated, the assessee is an individual deriving income primarily under the head "Salary". The assessee filed his return of income for Assessment Year 2022-23 on 25.07.2022 declaring total income of Rs.28,25,780/-. The return was selected for scrutiny assessment. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that an amount of Rs.9,60,000/- was reflected in the return of income under the exempt income schedule as exempt under section 10(11) of the Act. The assessee was called upon to substantiate the claim and furnish documentary evidence in support thereof. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee failed to furnish satisfactory documentary evidence regarding the receipt claimed as exempt under section 10(11). The Assessing Officer was of the view that since the assessee had disclosed the amount in the return of income but failed to substantiate the claim of exemption, the amount was liable to be brought to tax. Accordingly, while completing the assessment under section 143(3) read with

3 ITA No. 3468/Mum/2026 Manik Pratap Gole

section 144B of the Act vide order dated 11.03.2024, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.9,60,000/-.

4.

Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A), vide order dated 30.01.2026 passed under section 250 of the Act, upheld the action of the Assessing Officer by observing that the assessee had not furnished documentary evidence supporting the claim made in the return of income. Consequently, the addition was sustained.

5.

The assessee is in further appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal:

1.

That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 9,60,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of the alleged claim of exemption under Section 10(11) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without appreciating that the said amount was never received by the Assessee and no corresponding credit exists in any of his bank accounts. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition without appreciating that the entry of Rs. 9,60,000/- under Section 10(11) in the ITR was purely an inadvertent clerical error made by an unqualified person who assisted in return filing, and not any deliberate attempt to claim an exemption or conceal income. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition in violation of CBDT Circular No. 14(XL-35) dated 11/04/1955 which directs that the Department must not take advantage of the ignorance or mistakes of the assessee to collect more tax than what is legitimately due. In the present case, the inadvertent error in ITR filing by an unqualified tax preparer led to an entry which had no tax impact, and the Department's insistence on taxation of a non-existent receipt is wholly contrary to the spirit of the said Circular.

4 ITA No. 3468/Mum/2026 Manik Pratap Gole

4.

The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any of the above grounds before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. The Appellant further reserves the right to submit additional documentary evidence, affidavits, and relevant case laws in support of the above grounds at the time of hearing. 6. Before us, the learned Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that the entire addition is founded upon a clerical and inadvertent data-entry error committed while filing the return of income. It was submitted that the assessee was employed as Plant Head with UPL Limited, Ankleshwar Plant, Gujarat, during the relevant previous year and the return was prepared with the assistance of an unqualified and inexperienced person. Owing to a data-entry mistake, an amount of Rs.9,60,000/- came to be reflected in the exempt income schedule under section 10(11) of the Act although no such amount was ever received by the assessee. 7. The learned AR submitted that the impugned entry was entirely tax-neutral and did not result in any reduction of taxable income. It was pointed out that the amount of Rs.9,60,000/- was never reduced from the salary income while computing the total income and, therefore, no tax advantage was obtained by the assessee. The learned AR further invited our attention to the paper book containing Form No.16 issued by UPL Limited, Form No.26AS, bank statements of all four bank accounts maintained by the assessee during the relevant period, EPFO account statement, detailed bank-credit reconciliation and a sworn affidavit of the assessee.

5 ITA No. 3468/Mum/2026 Manik Pratap Gole

8.

It was submitted that every credit appearing in the four bank accounts has been identified and explained and none of the credits represents any provident fund receipt. Particular emphasis was placed on the EPFO account statement, which, according to the learned Authorised Representative, records nil withdrawal during Financial Year 2021-22. It was argued that if the assessee had actually received Rs.9,60,000/- from any provident fund account, there would necessarily have been a corresponding withdrawal reflected in the official EPFO records and a corresponding credit in the bank account. According to the learned Authorised Representative, neither exists in the present case. 9. The learned AR further submitted that section 10(11) of the Act itself has no application to the facts of the case since the assessee was employed in the private sector and was a member of the Employees' Provident Fund governed by the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. It was contended that the assessee was never a member of any Statutory Provident Fund governed by the Provident Funds Act, 1925 and, therefore, the very provision invoked by the Assessing Officer was inapplicable. It was argued that the addition amounts to taxation of a non-existent receipt and is liable to be deleted. 10. The learned AR also relied upon the sworn affidavit filed by the assessee wherein the assessee has categorically affirmed that no amount of Rs.9,60,000/- was ever received by him from EPFO,

6 ITA No. 3468/Mum/2026 Manik Pratap Gole

any provident fund authority or any other source and that the entry in the return was merely an inadvertent clerical mistake. It was submitted that the Revenue has not brought any material on record to dislodge the contents of the affidavit. 11. Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative relied upon the orders of the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A). It was submitted that the assessee himself had disclosed the amount under section 10(11) in the return of income and failed to substantiate the same before the lower authorities. The learned Departmental Representative accordingly supported the orders of the authorities below. 12. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The short issue requiring adjudication is whether the addition of Rs.9,60,000/- can be sustained merely because such amount was reflected under the exempt income schedule of the return of income despite the assessee's categorical stand that no such amount was ever received. 13. Upon a careful consideration of the material placed before us, we find considerable force in the submissions advanced on behalf of the assessee. The Revenue has not brought any material on record demonstrating that the assessee actually received Rs.9,60,000/- during the relevant previous year. There is no evidence of any withdrawal from any provident fund account, no evidence of any payment by EPFO or any provident fund

7 ITA No. 3468/Mum/2026 Manik Pratap Gole

authority, and no evidence of any corresponding credit in any of the bank accounts maintained by the assessee. 14. On the contrary, the assessee has placed on record the statements of all four bank accounts maintained during the relevant period and has furnished a detailed reconciliation explaining each credit entry. The assessee has also placed on record the EPFO account statement showing nil withdrawal during Financial Year 2021-22. These documents prima facie support the assessee's contention that no such receipt was ever received. 15. We further find that the assessee has filed a sworn affidavit affirming that no amount of Rs.9,60,000/- was ever received from any provident fund authority and that the disclosure under section 10(11) was an inadvertent data-entry error. The Revenue has not brought any material on record to rebut or discredit the contents of the affidavit. It is a settled proposition of law that an affidavit, unless controverted by cogent material, cannot be brushed aside merely on surmises and conjectures. 16. We also find merit in the contention of the assessee that section 10(11) concerns payments from a Statutory Provident Fund governed by the Provident Funds Act, 1925 or other notified provident funds. The assessee was admittedly employed with UPL Limited, a private sector company, and the provident fund applicable to such employment is governed by the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.

8 ITA No. 3468/Mum/2026 Manik Pratap Gole

Therefore, even the factual premise underlying the impugned addition appears to be misconceived. 17. Most importantly, income-tax can be levied only on real income and not on a purely notional or non-existent receipt. A mistaken disclosure in a return of income, by itself, cannot constitute evidence of receipt of income when all surrounding facts and documentary evidence demonstrate that no such receipt ever came into existence. The burden having shifted upon the Revenue once the assessee produced the relevant bank statements, EPFO records and sworn affidavit, it was incumbent upon the Revenue to bring positive evidence establishing receipt of the impugned amount. No such evidence has been brought on record. 18. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the addition of Rs.9,60,000/- has been sustained merely on account of an erroneous disclosure in the return of income and not on the basis of any material evidencing receipt of income. Accordingly, the addition cannot be sustained. 19. We, therefore, set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs.9,60,000/-. The Assessing Officer is further directed to recompute the total income of the assessee in accordance with law after giving effect to the aforesaid direction.

9 ITA No. 3468/Mum/2026 Manik Pratap Gole

20.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 19.06.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) (MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 19/06/2026 Dhananjay, Sr.PS आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथी / The Appellant 1. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 2. 3. संबंधधत आयकर आयुक्त / The CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / Concerned CIT धिभागीय प्रधतधनधध, आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण, मुम्बई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, सत्याधपत प्रधत //True Copy// 1. उि/सहायक िंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, मुम्बई / ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →