Loading judgment…
Facts
For AY 2010-11, the AO made additions, including Rs. 29 Lacs which was a typographical error for Rs. 24 Lacs (investment less agricultural income). The CIT(A) fully allowed the appeal against this Rs. 29 Lacs addition, but the AO later granted relief for only Rs. 17 Lacs, retaining Rs. 12 Lacs. The assessee filed a delayed appeal (3173 days) against this retained addition, believing it was fully deleted.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the assessee's grievance genuine due to the typographical error in the addition and additional explained sources of funds. It directed the AO to delete the entire Rs. 29 Lacs addition in full.
Key Issues
Whether the remaining addition of Rs. 12 Lacs, arising from a typographical error in the original assessment and partial relief by the AO despite the CIT(A)'s full allowance, should be deleted, and if the significant delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.
Sections Cited
Section 143(3), Section 147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘DB’, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR
Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM & HON’BLE SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA, JM
आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 1. 2010-11 arises out of an order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Amritsar [CIT(A)] dated 31-05-2016 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 29-03-2016. In the assessment order, Ld. AO made twin additions of Rs.56.25 Lacs and Rs.29 Lacs. The addition of Rs.29 Lacs as made by Ld. AO in computation of income is clerical error since upon perusal of para-3 of the assessment order, it is quite clear that the assessee made investment of Rs.35 Lacs against which Ld. AO gave benefit of Rs.11 Lacs of agricultural income and sought addition of Rs.24 Lacs in the hands of the assessee. However, in the computation sheet, the said figure was erroneously taken as Rs.29 Lacs. The assessee challenged both the additions in first appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) fully allowed the appeal of the assessee qua addition of Rs.29 Lacs though the discussion was made in the impugned order towards sources of Rs.17 Lacs only. The department’s appeal against the same stood dismissed by Tribunal in common order dated 14-10-2019 on account of low tax effect.
The grievance of the assessee stem from the fact that while giving effect to the impugned first appellate order, Ld. AO has granted relief only to the extent of Rs.17 Lacs but confirmed remaining addition of Rs.12 Lacs out of total addition of Rs.29 Lacs. The Ld. AR stated that since the appeal was fully allowed, the assessee was under the impression that the impugned additions stood deleted fully. However, Ld. AO, while passing order giving effect order, has granted relief only to the extent of Rs.17 Lacs but retained addition of Rs.12 Lacs. The said impression of the assessee has led to inordinate delay of 3173 days in the appeal which deserve to be condoned and the addition be deleted in full.
We find the grievance of the assessee to be genuine. It could clearly be seen that addition of Rs.29 Lacs was typographical error. The Ld. AO had made addition of Rs.24 Lacs only. The assessee assailed this addition which was also fully allowed by Ld. CIT(A) through the discussion was made to the extent of sources of Rs.17 Lacs only. Upon perusal of impugned order, it could be seen that the assessee had duly disclosed the sources of funds to the extent of Rs.10 Lacs also which were taken from Shri Avtar Singh through banking channels. On these facts, we admit the appeal of the assessee and direct Ld. AO to delete the impugned addition of Rs.29 Lacs in full.
The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order. Order pronounced u/r 34(4) of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.