ANIL KUMAR,BILASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD HAMIRPUR

That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), is not justified in not considering the submission and evidence put forth by the assessee/ appellant.

That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), is not justified in upholding the order passed by the Ld. CPC, Bengaluru under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and upholding the assessment framed under section 143(1) whereby the income of the father of the assessee/ appellant wrongly punched has been assessed as the income of the assessee.

That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and facts. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under:- The appellant is an individual and derives income from salary. The appellant filed return of income for the A.Y-2021-22 on 19.07.2021 declaring total income of Rs.9,41,280/-, The CPC, Bangalore processed the return u/s 143(1) raising demand. The appellant filed application for rectification of the 83-Chd-2025 Anil Kumar, Bilaspur said Intimation. AO, CPC passed the order u/s 154 dated 12.08.2023, making certain adjustments / raising tax.

The findings of the ld. Addl. CIT(A) in his appellate order are as under:- “5.1 I have carefully gone through the rectification order u/s 154, the grounds of appeal and submission made by the appellant in this regard. Briefly stating facts of the case is that the appellant filed return of income which was processed u/s 143(1) by CPC raising certain demand. The appellant prayed for rectification u/s 154 of the said Intimation but CPC passed order u/s 154 keeping the demand unchanged. The only issue involved in this case is that the appellant who is salaried employee objected to taxing his salary income incorrectly. 5.2 The appellant has raised single ground of appeal. He claimed that, while processing the return of income (ITR) u/s 143(1) as well as in the order u/s 154, CPC had considered

During proceedings before us, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer CPC, Bengaluru did not consider the request of the Assessee to make rectification u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') and upheld the assessment framed u/s 143(1) of the Act whereby the income of the father of the Assessee was wrongly punched as income of the Assessee.

The Ld. DR relied on the order of the authorities below. 7. We have considered the finding given by the CPC Bengaluru as well as by the Addl. CIT(A). We have also gone through the request made by the Ld. counsel of the Assessee. We are of this considered view that natural justice demands that the right income of the Assessee should be assessed in its hands and not the income of somebody else should be assessed to tax in the hands of the Assessee. Therefore, keeping in view the element of natural justice to the Assessee and in the fitness of things we remand this matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment by considering the submissions, documents produced by the Assessee and the relevant material available on record. Needless to say, that the Assessing Officer shall afford due, reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing to the Assessee. The Assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the Assessing Officer. All pleas