IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW ‘B’ BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SH. SUBHASH MALGURIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A.Y. 2009-10 M/s Sarjoo Prasad Rajpat vs. ITO-1(1)(4), PAN:AAFFS5661Q

55/15, Kahoo Kothi, Kanpur 16/69/ Kanpur (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by: Sh. Pradeep Kumar Sahgal, Advocate Revenue by: Sh. Deepak Yadav, DR Date of hearing: 02.06 .2025 Date of pronouncement: O2 4R. 0D7 E.2 0R2 5 PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.:

[

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 13.03.2024 wherein the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee against the order under section 154 passed“ 1b.y T thhaet ltdh.e A oOrd oenr i2n5 a.0p4pe.2a0l 1pa8s. sTehd eb yg rtohue nLdds C oITf (aAp)p, NeaFlA aCr ies absa du nind elarw:- and facts and deserves to be quashed by allowing the appeal.

2. That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC under the facts and circumstances of the case has erred in law and in facts, in upholding the order of Ld. AO in rejecting the application made under section 154 of the Act.

3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the appellant, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in rejecting contention of appellant for rectification of mistake u/s 154 of the Act on the ground that appellant ought to have filed revised return of income within due date if there was any mistake in filing of original return of income. The LD. CIT(A), NFAC ought to have appreciated that AO is bound to compute correct income as per provisions of the Act and tax cannot be levied at higher amount due to error made while filing return of income.

4. That the Ld CIT(A), NFAC has erred in law and facts in concluding that a clerical error made at the time of filing of return resulting into filing of amounts interchangeably under wrong heads would not qualify as a rectifiable mistake apparent from record u/s 154 of the Act although on a bare perusal of the income tax return filed such a mistake becomes clearly apparent.

5. (i) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the appellant the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC ought to have appreciated that expression "any mistake apparent from record appearing in provisions of section 154 of the Act extends to amendment of intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act and mistake committed in the return filed by appellant and the term "mistake" and "record" has a wider meaning than the narrow interpretation made by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC.

(ii) That Ld AO was duty bound to compute the correct income in law in the wake of Circular No. 014(XL-35)/1955 dated 11.4.1955 issued by CBDT and the Ld CIT(A), NFAC has erred in law and in facts by falling ignorant to the same.”

2. The facts of the case are that a demand of Rs.53,390/- were raised against the assessee for the assessment year 2009-10 under section 143(1) of the Act and this was reflected as outstanding against the assessee on the CPC AO portal for the assessment year 2009-10. Accordingly, the ld. AO served upon the assessee notice on 19.09.2017, requesting that the outstanding arrear demand may kindly be paid by 4.10.2017 or to submit proof of payment of the said demand. In response to the same, the assessee filed in application under section 154, in which it was submitted that in the return of income, which was filed on 27.09.2009, an inadvertent mistake was committed by the assessee in filling the profit and loss account it the return of income. Partners interest of Rs.1,52,264/- was inadvertently filled in column no.42 and depreciation of Rs.179/- was filled in column no. 41, under the head, “interest” which resulted in an additional income of Rs.1,42,085/-, while processing the return by the CPC. Apparently, the assessee filed an application under section 154 to the CPC Bangalore on 11.03.2011, which as submitted by the assessee before the ld. AO, was pending for disposal at the time of the rectification application filed in response to the AO’s letter. The l