BALKRISHNA DEVRAJ DUBEY,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 42(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2876/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Balkrishna Devraj Dubey, the appellant, contesting the Income Tax Officer's (ITO) decision regarding the relief claimed under section 89(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2017-18. Initially, the ITO allowed a relief of Rs. 6,46,368 in the computation sheet annexed to the assessment order under section 143(3). However, this was later rectified to Rs. 2,50,441 through a rectification order under section 154, citing a mistake in the original computation. The appellant challenged this rectification, leading to the current appeal. The tribunal decided to restore the appeal to the CIT(A) to be heard alongside another pending appeal by the same assessee on related matters, emphasizing the need for a consolidated decision to ensure justice and procedural fairness.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 668989 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAM KRISHN KEDIA
• Assessee Lawyers: RAVIKANT PATHAK
• Keywords: Rectification of order
• Section: 143(3); 154

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2876/Mum/2025 (Assessment year : 2017-18) Balkrishna Devraj Dubey R No.307, B Wing, Jai Shiv Palace, Sneha Hospital Galli, Navghar Road, Bhayander East, Maharashtra-401 105 PAN : AEXPD7533C vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-42(2)(1), Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai- 400 051 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Ravikant Pathak Respondent by : Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, (SR. DR) Date of hearing : 19/06/2025 Date of pronouncement : 25/06/2025 O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is arising out of the order of the Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [hereafter, Ld.CIT(A)], dated 21/03/2025 for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre CIT(A)) erred in confirming the action of AO in restricting the relief claimed u/s 89(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (\"Act\") at Rs. 2,50,441/- in the rectification order Passed u/s 154 of the Act as against the relief claimed by the Appellant of Rs. 6,46,368/-in the return of income. 2 ITA 2876/Mum/2025 Balkrishna Devraj Dubey 2. The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of AO in restricting the relief claimed u/s 89(1) of the Act at Rs. 2,50,441/- as against the relief claimed by the Appellant at Rs.6,46,368/- in the return of income. Your Appellant craves leave to add, to alter, to amend or vary all or any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal.” 3. At the very outset, I notice that assessment order in the present case was completed under section 143(3) on 26/12/2019, wherein the Assessing Officer assessed the income of the assesse at Rs26,96,460/- and restricted the relief at Rs. 2,50,441/- as against relief of Rs.6,46,368/- claimed by the assessee under section 89(1) of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer allowed the relief of Rs.6,46,368/- under section 89(1) of the Act in the computation sheet annexed to the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act. Thereafter, on realizing the said mistake, the Ld.AO in the notice dated 30/01/2024 issued under section 154 of the Act, proposed to restrict the relief to Rs. 2,50,441/- instead of relief of Rs.6,46,368/- Allowed to the assessee, vide order passed under section 143(3) of the Act and, therefore, rectified the order passed under section 143(3) of the Act by invoking provisions of section 154 of the Act and restricted the claim under section 89(1) of the Act at Rs.2,50,441/-. 4. It has been brought to my knowledge that the appeal against the order dated 143(3) of the Act is still pending before the Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, in my view, passing of an order in the present appeal would certainly cause prejudice to the rights of the assesse in an appeal pending before the Ld.CIT(A). Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the allegations or counter allegations contained in the present appeal and the dispute, I am of the view that the ends of justice will be met in case both the appeals filed by the assesse regarding same subject matter is 3 ITA 2876/Mum/2025 Balkrishna Devraj Dubey decided simultaneously by Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, keeping in view the said factual background, I restore the present appeal to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to pass a fresh order in the present appeal simultaneously with the other appeal of the assesse that is pending before the same authority against order under section 143(3) of the Act passed by the Ld.AO. It is ordered accordingly. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 25th day of June, 2025. Sd/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, िदनांक/Dated: 25/06/2025 Pavanan Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ /The Appellant , 2. ितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु\u0014 CIT 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., मुबंई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड फाइल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar), ITAT, Mumbai "