##PAGE1##

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

“B” BENCH MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 3468/Mum/2026

(Assessment Year: 2022-23)

Manik Pratap Gole ITO Ward 42(2)(4)

403, Manas CHS Plot Kautilya Bhavan,

No. 5, Thane, Belapur Vs. Mumbai-400 051

Rd Sector 6, Airoli,

Mumbai-400708

PAN/GIR No. ALZPG0710D

(Applicant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Shri Tarun Gupta (virtually appeared),

Ld. AR

Revenue by Shree Kumar C., Ld. DR

Date of Hearing 17.06.2026

Date of Pronouncement 19.06.2026

आदेश / ORDER

PER MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, AM:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the

order dated 30.01.2026 passed by the learned Commissioner of

Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

[hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)"], under section 250 of the

Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"], arising

2

ITA No. 3468/Mum/2026

Manik Pratap Gole

out of the assessment order dated 11.03.2024 passed by the

Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 144B of

the Act for Assessment Year 2022-23.

2. The effective grievance of the assessee is against the action

of the learned CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.9,60,000/-

made by the Assessing Officer on account of an alleged claim of

exemption under section 10(11) of the Act.

3. Briefly stated, the assessee is an individual deriving income

primarily under the head "Salary". The assessee filed his return of

income for Assessment Year 2022-23 on 25.07.2022 declaring

total income of Rs.28,25,780/-. The return was selected for

scrutiny assessment. During the course of assessment

proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that an amount of

Rs.9,60,000/- was reflected in the return of income under the

exempt income schedule as exempt under section 10(11) of the

Act. The assessee was called upon to substantiate the claim and

furnish documentary evidence in support thereof. According to

the Assessing Officer, the assessee failed to furnish satisfactory

documentary evidence regarding the receipt claimed as exempt

under section 10(11). The Assessing Officer was of the view that

since the assessee had disclosed the amount in the return of

income but failed to substantiate the claim of exemption, the

amount was liable to be brought to tax. Accordingly, while

completing the assessment under section 143(3) read with

3

ITA No. 3468/Mum/2026

Manik Pratap Gole

section 144B of the Act vide order dated 11.03.2024, the

Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.9,60,000/-.

4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before

the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A), vide order dated

30.01.2026 passed under section 250 of the Act, upheld the

action of the Assessing Officer by observing that the assessee had

not furnished documentary evidence supporting the claim made

in the return of income. Consequently, the addition was

sustained.

5. The assessee is in further appeal before us raising following

grounds of appeal:

1. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the

addition of Rs. 9,60,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of

the alleged claim of exemption under Section 10(11) of the Income Tax

Act, 1961, without appreciating that the said amount was never

received by the Assessee and no corresponding credit exists in any of

his bank accounts.

2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition without

appreciating that the entry of Rs. 9,60,000/- under Section 10(11) in the

ITR was purely an inadvertent clerical error made by an unqualified

person who assisted in return filing, and not any deliberate attempt to

claim an exemption or conceal income.

3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition in violation of

CBDT Circular No. 14(XL-35) dated 11/04/1955 which directs that the

Department must not take advantage of the ignorance or mistakes of the

assessee to collect more tax than what is legitimately due. In the

present case, the inadvertent error in ITR filing by an unqualified tax

prepare