MANOJ KUMAR,ROORKEE vs. ITO, ROORKEE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 280/DDN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun06 October 2026AY 2017-186 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed a typographical error in filing the return for AY 2017-18. The AO passed the assessment order based on this erroneous income, and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, stating that the assessee had not furnished contemporaneous documentary evidence to substantiate the alleged mistake in declaring 'Income from Other Sources'. The CIT(A) also held that without complete scrutiny or specific investigation, the sanctity of the claim for reduction could not be determined. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to restore the issue of determination of correct income from other sources, including whether it was due to a typographical mistake, to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudication de novo. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide three effective opportunities to the assessee to furnish evidence, and the assessee was directed to furnish the requisite documents. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Manoj Kumar, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Dehradun Bench, against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] dated 16.02.2026. This order arose from an intimation/order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 27.03.2019, for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. The assessee's appeal before the ITAT was filed with a delay of 23 days, which was condoned. The AO had passed an order creating a demand of Rs. 3,79,449/-, whereas the assessee had computed and deposited tax of Rs. 37,820/- under Section 140A. The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal. The assessee contended that a typographical error occurred in filing the return, leading to an incorrect addition of Rs. 10,08,000/- in 'Other Income'.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) is bad in law, as the appellate authority failed to appreciate a clear typographical mistake in the income return filed by the assessee, contrary to the provisions of Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether the assessment framed on Rs. 16,64,380/- wrongly includes an addition of Rs. 10,08,000/- in 'Other Income' due to a typographical error, and whether the CIT(A) and AO failed to consider the record and computation filed along with the return, making the order under Section 250/143(1) against law and facts? Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that a typographical error occurred where one zero was added to the 'Other Income' figure, inflating it from Rs. 1,12,506/- to Rs. 11,20,506/-, resulting in an erroneous addition of Rs. 10,08,000/-. This mistake could have been rectified by filing a revised return or during appeal proceedings. The assessee relied on the principle that one should be assessed on real income, not income created by mistake, and that past records and computation charts show the error. The assessee also argued that the CIT(A) and AO failed to properly consider the record and computation filed with the return. Revenue's contentions: The learned DR did not raise any serious objection and relied upon the orders of the authorities below.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 140A,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN BENCH, DEHRADUN

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA

आदेश / ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of The Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals, ADDL/JCIT (A)-1 Hyderabad [‘CIT(A)’ in short] dated 16.02.2026 arising from the intimation/order passed by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘the AO’) i.e., CPC, u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 27.03.2019 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We accordingly decided to hear the case with the assistance of the ld. DR. The ld. DR appraised us with facts of the case and materials on record. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee reads as under: 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. 112506 Difference Rs. 1008000 It all erept 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.”

3.

At the outset, it is noticed from the appeal record that there is a delay of 23 days in filing the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The delay is hereby condoned in view of the reasons submitted before the Tribunal by the assessee. 4. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a trader in Roorkee and assessed regularly every year. For the assessment year 2017-18, the ld. Counsel of the assessee committed an error in filing the return. The Ld. AO passed an order u/s 143(1) creating demand of Rs. 3,79,449/- where as the assessee had computed the tax and deposited the same u/s 140A of the Act amounting to Rs. 37,820/- on 2nd Feb 2018. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee was in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed this appeal before us. 7. Before us, it is stated that the appellate authority failed to appreciate typographical mistake and also stated that the assessment framed on Rs.16,64,380/- actually contains addition of Rs.10,08,000/- wrongly made in other income as under: Other income filed Rs.11,20,506/- Actual other income and interest etc. Rs.1,12,506/- Difference Rs.10,08,000/-

8.

Per contra, learned DR did not raise any serious objection and relied upon the order of authorities below. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. We find that for the assessment year 2017-18, the assessee has claimed that he committed a typographical error, in filing the return. The AO passed the assessment order on the basis of erroneous income and the ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the typographical error on the ground that the assessee has not furnished contemporaneous documentary evidence to substantiate the alleged mistake in declaring "Income from Other Sources", and that without complete scrutiny/specific investigation the sanctity of the claim of reduction cannot be determined. In that view of the matter, and in the interest of justice and fair play, we restore the issue of determination of correct income from other sources, whether the same is on account of typographical mistake, to the file of the Assessing Officer to adjudicate the matter de-novo. The Assessing Officer is directed to accord three effective opportunities to the assessee to furnish evidence/materials to present its case. The assessee is likewise, directed to furnish the requisite documents as called for by the AO.

10.

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No.280/DDN/2026 is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 17.08.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- SATBEER SINGH GODARA NAVEEN CHANDRA JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Delhi Dated: 06.10.2026 Priti Yadav, Sr. PS*

SHASHI Digitally signed by SHASHI KANT KANT PANDEY Date: 2026.10.09 PANDEY 14:49:24 +05'30'

Copy to: MANOJ KUMAR, AZAD NAGAR ROORKEE, 1 ROORKEE-247667, UTTARAKHAND ITO, 2 AYAKAR BHAWAN ROORKEE, ROORKEE-247667, UTTARAKHAND 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, DEHRADUN BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

More judgments on Section 140A

All 125 judgments and leading authorities on Section 140A →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →