BALKRISHNA DEVRAJ DUBEY,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 42(2)(1), MUMBAI

At the very outset, I notice that assessment order in the present case was completed under section 143(3) on 26/12/2019, wherein the Assessing Officer assessed the income of the assesse at Rs26,96,460/- and restricted the relief at Rs. 2,50,441/- as against relief of Rs.6,46,368/- claimed by the assessee under section 89(1) of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer allowed the relief of Rs.6,46,368/- under section 89(1) of the Act in the computation sheet annexed to the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act. Thereafter, on realizing the said mistake, the Ld.AO in the notice dated 30/01/2024 issued under section 154 of the Act, proposed to restrict the relief to Rs. 2,50,441/- instead of relief of Rs.6,46,368/- Allowed to the assessee, vide order passed under section 143(3) of the Act and, therefore, rectified the order passed under section 143(3) of the Act by invoking provisions of section 154 of the Act and restricted the claim under section 89(1) of the Act at Rs.2,50,441/-.

It has been brought to my knowledge that the appeal against the order dated 143(3) of the Act is still pending before the Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, in my view, passing of an order in the present appeal would certainly cause prejudice to the rights of the assesse in an appeal pending before the Ld.CIT(A). Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the allegations or counter allegations contained in the present appeal and the dispute, I am of the view that the ends of justice will be met in case both the appeals filed by the assesse regarding same subject matter is