Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed a return declaring income and claimed exemption. The initial claim was disallowed, leading to an appeal. Subsequently, the assessment was completed under section 143(3), but an incorrect total income was considered in the computation sheet.
Held
The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) erroneously considered grounds from an earlier appeal against an intimation order. The Tribunal found that the figure of income in the computation sheet was a mistake apparent from the record.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in disposing of the appeal on incorrect grounds and by not adjudicating all grounds, including those related to incorrect income computation and interest charge.
Sections Cited
250, 143(1), 143(3), 154, 10(35), 234C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE- & MRS. RENU JAUHRI, HON’BLE
The above captioned appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 07.08.2025, passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as, “Act”) in Appeal No. NFAC/2017- 18/10033471 for A.Y. 2018-19.
The assessee has raised grounds of appeal
which are reproduced as below: “
1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred on the facts and in law in not considering correct grounds of appeal and written submission filed by appellant 1 | P a g e
1.1 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has Incorrectly considered grounds of appeal and written submission relating to appeal against intimation u/s 143(1) for the same year, which has already been disposed off by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vide appellate order dated 09.01.2024.
2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred on the facts and in law in not adjudicating the appeal filed against the assessment order under section 143(3) dated 31.12.2020 wherein learned assessing officer has considered incorrect total income at Rs. 67,30,44,343/- in the computation sheet, instead of correct total income of Rs. 62,45,93,700/- as accepted in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of Income Tax Act and creating an incorrect tax demand of Rs. 60,71,877/-.
3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred on facts and in law in not adjudicating the grounds relating to interest charged of Rs. 3,32,925/- u/s 234C of Income Tax Act in the assessment order.
4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred on the facts and in law in not providing an opportunity of hearing through video conferencing requested by appellant vide letter dated 09.07.2025.
The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or vary, any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal and consider each of the grounds as without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal.”
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return declaring income of Rs. 62.45 cr. and claimed exemption u/s 10(35) of Rs. 4.85 cr. in respect of dividend income from units of mutual funds. Return was processed u/s 143(1)
2 | P a g e Siddhartha Lal Trust vs DCIT on 25.02.2020 and claim of exemption u/s 10(35) was disallowed. The assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) against intimation u/s 143(1) on 16.03.2020. An application for rectification was also filed u/s 154 before the Ld. AO on 10.08.2020. As Ld. AO rectified the intimation vide order u/s 154/143(1) dated 11.08.2020, the assesssee withdraw the appeal which was dismissed as withdrawn by Ld. JCIT(A) vide order dated 09.01.2024. Subsequently, assessment was completed u/s 143(3) at returned income vide order dated 31.12.2020. However, in the computation sheet, income has been considered at Rs. 67.30 cr. as per original 143(1) intimation ignoring the subsequent rectification. Assessee filed appeal on 04.03.2021 before Ld. CIT(A) against incorrect computation of income.
However, Ld. CIT(A) disposed off the appeal on incorrect grounds by taking the grounds of appeal filed earlier against intimation u/s 143(1). This being an apparent mistake, the assessee filed a rectification application before Ld. CIT(A). However, the same has not been disposed off by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
4 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We note that the Ld. CIT(A) has erroneously considered the grounds of earlier appeal and dismissed the appeal after observing that the assessee’s returned income stands accepted in the subsequent order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act by the Ld. AO and, therefore, the addition does not stand. We note that in 3 | P a g e Siddhartha Lal Trust vs DCIT the computation sheet, the figure of income has been erroneously taken at Rs. 67,30,44,343/- instead of Rs. 62,45,93,700/- as assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act which is a mistake apparent from record and should have been rectified by the lower authorities. We, therefore, direct the Ld. AO to recompute the tax after taking the correct figure of income of Rs. 62,45,93,700/- as assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 08-01-2026.
Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (RENU JAUHRI) Vice President Accountant Member Dated: 14.01.2026 Pooja Mittal Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi
4 | P a g e