Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an individual earning salary income, filed their return for AY 2021-22. The CPC processed the return under Section 143(1) and raised a demand. The assessee applied for rectification, but the CPC passed an order under Section 154 without changing the demand, claiming no mistake was found. The assessee contended that their father's income was wrongly assessed as their own.
Held
The Tribunal found that natural justice requires the correct income to be assessed in the hands of the rightful assessee. The Tribunal noted that the CPC processed the return based on figures reported by the assessee, but the issue of wrong income assessment persisted.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee's father's income was wrongly assessed as the assessee's income, and if the rectification proceedings under Section 154 were correctly handled by the CPC.
Sections Cited
154, 143(1), 139(5)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘SMC’, CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY
Order Per Krinwant Sahay, AM: Appeal in this case has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 13.01.2025 of Addl./JCIT(A)-7, Kolkata fopr A.Y. 2021-22.
Grounds of appeal are as under: -
83-Chd-2025 Anil Kumar, Bilaspur 2
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.
2. 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:-
1. 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 3 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
83-Chd-2025 Anil Kumar, Bilaspur 4 his salary income at Rs.11.47,680/- instead of Rs.6,94,083/-Intimation u/s 143(1) as well as order u/s 154 passed by AO, CPC reveal that income was assessed on the basis of figures reported by appellant in the ITR. There was no mistake while processing the ITR. If the appellant had committed some mistake while filing the ITR, he should have filed revised ITR as per sec, 139(5) of the Act. I therefore uphold the action of CPC in the order u/s 154 and the appeal is dismissed.”
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.
83-Chd-2025 Anil Kumar, Bilaspur 5
The Ld. DR relied on the order of the authorities below.
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
83-Chd-2025 Anil Kumar, Bilaspur 6 available under the law shall remain so available to the assessee. Ordered accordingly.
In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced on 03. 09.2025.