SWARUP KUMAR ROY,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

The assessee has taken nine grounds of appeal, which are not in consonance with Rule 8 of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. They are descriptive and argumentative in nature.

In brief, the grievance of the assessee is that on account of an apparent mistake, ld. Assessing Officer has assessed house property income of Rs.5,69,192/-. There might be some error in the return form, which has been construed by the CPC, Bengaluru as house property income in the hands of the assessee. The assessee does not own any house property, which is generating rental income except a flat, where he is residing.

With the assistance of ld. Representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. The ld. 1st Appellate Authority has reproduced Section 143(1) and thereafter observed that the assessee had reflected an amount of Rs.5,62,192/- being income from house property in schedule of house property of the return of income, which was not included in the total income of the appellant. He further observed that under section 143(1), only limited exercise of verification can be made and error committed by the assessee in the schedule of income tax return form cannot be rectified.

It is pertinent to observe that in the ambit of apparent errors and not only the errors committed by the ld. Assessing Officer are only looked into but if any error committed at the end of the assessee in filing the return that has also to be looked into. It may

(A.Y. 2022-2023) Swarup Kumar Roy be justifiable at the end of the ld. ADDL/JCIT(Appeals) that CPC, Bengaluru may not carry out that exercise but being a 1st Appellate Authority, ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) ought to have called for complete details and then, verified them. He ought to have rectified any apparent mistake occurred even on account of failure of the assessee in disclosing figures in the return. Considering the above aspects, we set aside the matter to the file of ld. Assessing Officer with a direction that ld. Assessing Officer shall first determine whether any house property is available with the assessee, which can be construed as generating the income under the head “house property income” or not. Merely some erroneous narration has been made in the schedule would not be construed as a house property income available to the assessee. The ld. Assessing Officer should look into all these aspects and reexamine the issue. He is directed to decide the issue de novo. It is further observed that ld. Assessing Officer shall carry out the exercise only qua house property income and will not examine any other issue.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.