DASHRATH KUMAR SHARMA, JPR,JAIPUR V. ITO WD 7(4), JPR, JAIPUR

MA 24/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around a dispute concerning the addition of Rs. 38,76,456 to the assessee's income, which was initially declared as agricultural income in the original return for the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee later filed a revised return declaring nil agricultural income. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) treated the amount as unexplained other sources income due to lack of supporting evidence for agricultural income, leading to the assessee's appeal. The ITAT, after considering the revised return and the circumstances under which it was filed, rectified its earlier order and directed the deletion of the addition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 714217 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Other Referred Cases: Allied Motors (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Goodyear India Ltd. v. State of Haryana, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Vs. Babubhai Ramanbhai Patel
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAURAV AWASTHI
• Assessee Lawyers: MAHENDRA GARGIEYA; THR.VC; HEMANG GARGIEYA
• Keywords: Revised return; Corroborative evidences; Initiation of penalty proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 271(1)(c); 69; 139; 43B; 139(5)

Judgement Text

" vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM MA No. 24/JP/2025 (Arising out of vk;dj vihy la- ITA No. 647/JP/2024) fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Dashrath Kumar Sharma, 73, Pancholiya Ka Mohalla, Kanota, Jaipur cuke Vs. The ITO, Ward 7(4), Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: EAJPS0594A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. (thr. VC) & Shri Hemang Gargieya, Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT a lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 07/07/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 06/08/2025 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM The Present Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the assessee u/s 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act’) against the order of ITAT, Jaipur Benches, Jaipur in ITA No. 647/JP/2024 dated 17.03.2025 praying therein to rectify the mistake apparent while dealing with Ground No. 4 raised by the Printed from counselvise.com MA No. 24/JP/2025 Dashrath Kumar Sharma vs.ITO 2 assessee. The relevant contents as advanced in the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee reads as under:- 1. That the above appeal by the assessee was decided by this Hon'ble ITAT vide its order dated 17.03.2025, for A.Y. 2014-15. A copy of the ITAT order is enclosed herewith for a ready reference and marked as \"Annexure - 1\". 2. That the present Miscellaneous Application is being filed u/s 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking rectification of an apparent error in the order passed by the Hon’ble ITAT in the above-mentioned appeal, insofar as it relates to Ground No. 4 raised before the Hon’ble ITAT, relating to the addition of \u000138,76,456/- made by the ld. AO on account of alleged agricultural income, hence, being submitted herein below: MISTAKE: 3. That a perusal of the assessment order and the appellate order of the authorities below reveals that the sole basis for making the impugned addition was that the appellant had declared agricultural income in the original return of income filed u/s 139(4) of the Act on 30.03.2015. However, this return was subsequently revised, vis 139(5) and a fresh return was filed declaring 'Nil' agricultural income, thereby rectifying the mistake committed by the Appellant’s then Chartered Accountant/Tax Consultant. 3.2 That it is submitted that the revised return replaced the original return in its entirety and, as such, the basis for the addition ceased to exist. Accordingly, there remained no occasion for making any addition on account of agricultural income. This critical aspect was duly explained before the lower authorities as well as before the Hon’ble ITAT. Even the Hon’ble ITAT at Page 46, Para 12 of the subjected order passed noted the fact of the revised computation being filed, and also observed as under: \"The Bench noted that here the claim of the Assessee is supported by the original return and thereby filing the revised computation ---” However, it appears that the Hon’ble Bench inadvertently failed to take into account that such a revised return of income, was filed declaring Nil agricultural income. 3.3 Thereafter, the Hon’ble ITAT also cited a decision of the hon’ble Gujrat High Court supporting the contention of the Assessee but while concluding, held as under: “Considering the overall facts and submission placed on record we direct the Printed from counselvise.com MA No. 24/JP/2025 Dashrath Kumar Sharma vs.ITO 3 assessee to submit all the evidence before the ld. AO and thereby ld. AO shall verify the claim of the assessee with supporting evidence by the assessee. Thus, for this limited purpose of verifying the fact that the income to the extent of Rs. 38,76,456/- is to be charged as agricultural income or the other income. Based on these observations ground no. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.” 3.4 That the Hon’ble Bench, while concluding, appears to have proceeded on the incorrect factual premise that the Assessee had claimed agricultural income in the revised return (as against NIL agriculture income), which was treated by the AO as 'income from other sources', and accordingly directed the AO to verify the claim of the Assessee with supporting evidence. 4. It is respectfully submitted that the actual and correct position was entirely the opposite: the original return incorrectly disclosed agricultural income, which was thereafter duly withdrawn by filing a revised return declaring Nil income. The ld. AO was also duly informed of this position through a letter dated 23.12.2016, filed during the assessment proceedings (PB 1-3). Further, detailed written submissions were filed before the Hon’ble ITAT on 01.01.2025, explaining the correct facts, including the filing of the revised return, and the erroneous inclusion of agricultural income in the original return. Kindly refer to Page 26 and onwards of the said submissions, placed on record during the hearing. 5. In view of the above, it is respectfully submitted that there is an apparent error in the order of the Hon’ble ITAT inasmuch as the Hon’ble Bench has proceeded on a factual misconception, which has resulted in a direction to the AO for verification, despite there being no claim of agricultural income in the revised return. This constitutes a mistake apparent from the record, liable to be rectified u/s 254(2) of the Act. 6. It is settled that ignoring or wrongly dealing with the important legal & factual contentions certainly constitute mistake rectifiable u/s 251(2) of the Act. Hence it is humbly prayed that the subjected order dated 11.10.2023 may kindly be recalled to suitably correct the above mistakes which goes to the root of issue in hand and oblige. 4. An affidavit of the appellant in support of the contention is enclosed herewith and marked as \"Annexure 2\". 5. A challan dt. 26.03.2025 prescribed is enclosed herewith. of Rs.50/- showing payment towards the fee. Printed from counselvise.com MA No. 24/JP/2025 Dashrath Kumar Sharma vs.ITO 4 PRAYER In view of the foregoing submissions, it is most respectfully prayed that the Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to: (a) Recall and rectify the order to the limited extent of the addition of Rs. 38,76,456/- on account of agricultural income; and (b) Pass such other or further orders as may be deemed fit in the interest of justice. 2. The ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee in furtherance has also placed on record following written submission; In continuation to the above captioned MA, and as desired by the Hon’ble bench during the course of hearing thereof on dt. 13.05.2025 and as asked/directed, we are submitting herewith the following clarification and the papers (through a separate Paper Book): 1. That, for the AY 2014-15 the assessee has filed his return of Income on 30.03.2015 while declaring total income at Rs. 2,05,280/- with agricultural income at Rs. 38,76,456/- 2. That, however since such income was wrongly shown by the then CA/ Tax Consultant of the Assessee. The assessee later on filed the revised return through another CA on 30.03.2016 while declaring the total income of Rs. 2,05,280/- with NIL agricultural income. 3. That, the income shown initially of Rs. 38,76,456/- was never taken to the Capital Account nor to the Profit and Loss Account nor taken to the Balance Sheet which was initially filed with the Assessing Officer (PB 50). It was simply shown as income from other sources in the computation of total income. Hence, there was no financial implication thereof. 4. That, similarly therefore, while filing the revised financial statements (PB 56,58) and capital account (PB 57), no transactions related to the Agricultural Income of Rs. 38,76,456/- was passed through Capital or P&L Account, as in fact, there was no agriculture income. 5. That, the very fact that this agricultural income was wrongly shown by the CA and Tax Consultant of the assessee, was also stated to the Assessing Officer through letter dated 23.12.2016 (PB 1-3) vide para 9 reading as under: “9. Further stated that agriculture income shown in my original return filled on 30.12.2015 were wrongly shown as the return was getting time barring and due to hurries, it was wrongly shown. Please not consider the same.” 6. That, thus the assessee had not taken any advantage of the cash availability because of the said exempted agriculture income towards any outgoing or investment etc. 7. That, in support of the above contention, affidavit dt. 19.05.2025 of the Assessee/ Applicant has been enclosed (PB 125-126). Printed from counselvise.com MA No. 24/JP/2025 Dashrath Kumar Sharma vs.ITO 5 PRAYER In view of the foregoing submissions, it is most respectfully prayed that the Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to: (c) Recall and rectify the order to the limited extent of deleting the addition of Rs. 38,76,456/- made on account of agricultural income; and (d) Pass such other or further orders as may be deemed fit in the interest of justice. 3. To support the contention raised in the MA filed by the assessee the ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee has placed their written submission which reads as follows; GOA-4: Addition of Rs. 38,76,456/- under income from other sources: Facts: The ld. AO has dealt this issue at pg.7 para 6.6 in following words: “6.6 Agriculture income- During the year under consideration the assessee has shown agriculture income of Rs 38,76,456/- in his return of income filed on 30.03.2015, In order to verify the genuineness of the declared agriculture income the assessee vide notice u/s 142(1) dated 10.11.2016 was required to furnish the documentary evidence regarding land holding sale bill of crops jamabandi and girdawari report in support of the same. However, despite providing various reasonable opportunities, the assessee has failed to furnish any of the above required details and documents, In the circumstances, the claim of agriculture income remained unverified. Accordingly the same is treated as unexplained other sources income and added to the total income of the assessee From the above it is clear that the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income/furnished inaccurate particulars. Therefore, it is a fit case for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the IT Act, 1961.” On this aspect, the ld. CIT(A) at pg.15 confirmed as under: “Ground No.7:- The ground of appeal is directed against addition of Rs.38,76,456/- made by the Ld. AO on account of agricultural income earned by the appellant. Printed from counselvise.com MA No. 24/JP/2025 Dashrath Kumar Sharma vs.ITO 6 The appellant has not produced any documentary evidence regarding land holding, sale bills of crops, Jamabandi and Girdawari report etc. to support the same. In view of the foregoing, the addition made by the Ld. AO is hereby confirmed.” Hence this ground. Submission: 1. In this regard, following submission made before CIT(A): “9. Further stated that agriculture income shown in my original return filled on 30.12.2015 were wrongly shown as the return was getting time barring and due to hurries, it was wrongly shown. Please not consider the same.” 2. Addition as Income from Other Sources is completely without jurisdiction: A perusal of the orders of authorities below shall reveal that the only basis of making the addition of Rs. 38.76 lakhs is that the appellant had declared Agricultural Income in the initially filed ROI u/s 139(4) dt.30.03.2015 however, the assessee failed to furnish any document to substantiate the same. The authorities below had clearly ignored the revised ROI filed showing “Nil” income, which is also clear from the stand taken by the ld. CIT(A) in Page11, saying that “The appellant has not raised any ground of appeal for considering his revised return as the true and correct statement of affairs.”. Thus, ld. CIT (A) in absence of any specific ground, choose continuing with the originally filed ROI. Even the ld. AO held that the initial ROI not having been filed within the time permitted u/s 139(1), the revised ROI was liable to be ignored. However, the authorities below did not judiciously and correctly consider the provisions of law, in as much as the law confers specific power on the assessee to revise the initially filed ROI if he finds some “omission or wrong statement” therein provided such revision is possible only when initial ROI is filed within the time prescribed u/s 139(1) or it is in response to notice u/s 142(1). On the other hand, S.142(1) obliges the AO to issue a notice if no return is filed by the assessee within the permissible time limit. In this case, the assessee did not file the initial ROI u/s 139(1) before the due date being 31.07.2014, as the same was filed belatedly u/s 139(4) on 30.03.2015. Therefore, it was for the AO to have issued notice u/s 142(1) calling the appellant to file the ROI, which he has failed to comply with. On the other hand, the AO issued a notice u/s 143(2) on 31.08.2015 and thereafter the revised ROI was filed by the assessee on 30.03.2016. The AO not having issued any notice u/s 142(1) though obliged by the statute, it did not lie in his mouth now to raise objection and to ignore the revised ROI filed on 30.03.2016. In fact, when he issued notice u/s 143(2), he was also supposed to have issued notice Printed from counselvise.com MA No. 24/JP/2025 Dashrath Kumar Sharma vs.ITO 7 u/s 142(1) along with the same, which he did not. It is not the case of the AO that the revised ROI was filed out of time, which was within 1 year from the end of the relevant financial year in which the initial ROI was filed, which fall on 31.03.2016. For these reasons, the authorities below were bound to have considered the revised ROI and the declarations made therein. There appear a seeming contradiction in the drafting of the provision seen as much as the notice u/s 143(2) could be issued for any type of ROI whether filed initially u/s 139(1) or u/s 139(4), i.e. belated. But for revision of ROI so filed, the assessee is supposed to file the ROI within the time limit of S. 139(1) only. When the law has conferred a right upon the assessee to revise the ROI, noticing any “omission or wrong statement” made earlier, why such opportunity should not have been given w.r.t. ROI whether filed u/s 139(1) or u/s 139(4) belated and for these reasons only, the legislature has amended the provision u/s 139(5) by the Finance Act 2016, though w.e.f. 01.04.2017 by also adding “S. 139(4)”. Such a provision being remedial and benevolent, helping in removing the hardship, have been held to be retrospective in similar type of situations. 3. Supporting case laws: 3.1 Reliance is placed On Apex Court decision in the case of Allied Motors (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1997] 224 ITR 677 (SC) which held as under: “5. Section 43B was, therefore, clearly aimed at curbing the activities of those taxpayers who did not discharge their statutory liability of payment of excise duty, employer's contribution to provident fund, etc., for long periods of time but claimed deductions in that regard from their income on the ground that the liability to pay these amounts had been incurred by them in the relevant previous year. It was to stop this mischief that section 43B was inserted. It was clearly not realised that the language in which section 43B was worded would cause hardship to those taxpayers who had paid sales-tax within the statutory period prescribed for this payment, although the payment so made by them did not fall in the relevant previous year. This was because the sales-tax collected pertained to the last quarter of the relevant accounting year. It could be paid only in the next quarter which fell in the next accounting year. Therefore, even when the sales-tax had in fact been paid by the assessee within the statutory period prescribed for its payment and prior to the filing of the income-tax return, these assessees were unwittingly prevented from claiming a legitimate deduction in respect of the tax paid by them. This was not intended by section 43B. Hence the first proviso was inserted in section 43B. The amendment which was made by the Finance Act, 1987 in section 43B by inserting, inter alia, the first proviso, was remedial in nature, designed to eliminate unintended consequences which may cause undue hardship to the assessee and which made the provision unworkable or unjust in a specific situation.” Printed from counselvise.com MA No. 24/JP/2025 Dashrath Kumar Sharma vs.ITO 8 3.2 Goodyear India Ltd. v. State of Haryana [1991] 188 ITR 402 where it was held by Apex Court that the rule of reasonable construction must be applied while construing a statute. Literal construction should be avoided if it defeats the manifest object and purpose of the Act. Thus, the impugned addition is based on a misunderstanding of the law, misinterpretation of facts, and mere speculation. It should be entirely deleted. 4. At the time of hearing of the present MA the ld. AR of the assessee has filed the points of arguments in support of the MA preferred by the assessee and those points which are placed in support of the MA reads as under : 1.1 Pertinetively, even assuming it is held that the revised return filed on dt. 30.03.2015 was invalid and could not be taken cognizance then too, the AO himself agreed that it was an information and thus could not have been ignored. S. 143(3) and S. 142(1) obliges the AO to consider the material available on record before passing the assessment on record. Hence, such information not claiming agriculture income, was a valid material which could not have been ignored. 1.2 Had it been a case of declaring an income through such revised ROI could the AO ignore such income. No In any case as he would have made the addition of such additional declared income in such revised ROI. 1.3 Assessment was completed under S.143(3) meaning whereby the AO admitted accepted the fact of there being information before him of not claiming the agricultural income. 2.1 AO had no evidence at all considering the agricultural income as undisclosed income. He merely placed reliance on the initially filed ROI ignoring the revised ROI but there was no supporting evidence at all brought on record. In other words, there was no income at all and if he says there was some undisclosed income, he was bound to have established with the help of corroborative evidences, which he failed. Printed from counselvise.com MA No. 24/JP/2025 Dashrath Kumar Sharma vs.ITO 9 2.2 For obvious reasons, he even failed to apply the exact provision of law (viz. S. 68,69,69A, etc.). 2.3 Use of word may indicate that there is a discretion conferred upon the AO which must be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. The AO could not find out any other income which could give rise to such a huge undisclosed income which, the assessee could have earned. Kindly refer CIT v/s Smt. P.K.Noorjahan (1999) 237 ITR 570 (SC) held as follows: Held, dismissing the appeal, that in the instant case, the Tribunal had held that the discretion had not been properly exercised by the Income Tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner taking into account the circumstances in which the assessee was placed and the Tribunal had found that the investments could not be treated as income of the assessee. The High Court had agreed with the said view of the Tribunal. There was no error in the finding recorded by the Tribunal. Section 69 could not be invoked in respect of the investments of the assessee”. Also, Sumanti Dayal 214 ITR 810(SC). 5. Ld. AR of the assessee in addition to the contentions raised in the Miscellaneous Application vehemently argued that while dealing with Ground No. 4 of the assessee, the bench has rightly considered the fact that the revised return filed by the assessee is required to be considered while finalizing the assessment having given finding of that aspect wherein the assessee has withdrawn the claim of agricultural income for an amount of Rs. 38,76,456/- the directions thereby to charge the agricultural income or that of the other income is a mistake apparent from record and thereby the present Miscellaneous Application is filed. Printed from counselvise.com MA No. 24/JP/2025 Dashrath Kumar Sharma vs.ITO 10 6. On the other hand, ld. DR relied upon the fact that there is no ground of maintainability of about the contentions raised in the Miscellaneous Application and the assessee under the grab of Miscellaneous Application trying to review the order. Since there is no error as such in the finding of Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is not maintainable. 7. We have heard both parties and perused the material available on record. As is evident from para 12, bench noted that here the claim of the assessee is supported by the original return and thereby filling the revised computation at the time of assessment proceedings thus the claim of the assessee cannot be denied. We get support on this issue from the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Vs. Babubhai Ramanbhai Patel [ 84 taxmann.com 32 (Gujarat) where in the Hon’ble High court has held that ; 6. Sub-section (5) of Section 139, therefore, gives right to an assessee who has furnished a return under sub-section (1) or sub-section (4) to revise such return on discovery of any omission or a wrong statement. Such revised return, however, can be filed before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier. This is precisely what the assessee did while exercising the right to revise the return. Sub-section (5) of Section 139 does not envisage a situation whereupon revising the return if a case for loss arises which the assessee wishes to carry Printed from counselvise.com MA No. 24/JP/2025 Dashrath Kumar Sharma vs.ITO 11 forward, the same would be impermissible. In terms, sub-section (5) of Section 139 allows the assessee to revise the return filed under subsection (1) or sub-section (4) as long as the time frame provided therein is adhered to and the requirement of the revised return has arisen on discovery of any omission or a wrong statement in the return originally filed. Accepting the contention of the revenue would amount to limiting the scope of revising the return already filed by the assessee flowing from sub-section (5). No such language or intention flows from such provision. Considering that directions already given in the order of Tribunal and it is undisputed fact that the assessee has filed revised computation of income during the pendency the assessment proceedings withdrawing the claim of agricultural income. Therefore, we feel that there is a mistake apparent on record while dealing with ground of the assessee and therefore, to that extent mistake is rectified and para 12 to be read as under:- 12. Now coming to the last ground no. 4 raised by the assessee about the agricultural income which was considered in the original return and supported by filling the computation of the income were not considered and thereby the addition of Rs. 38,76,456/- was made as unexplained other source income in the hands of the assessee. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee for the year under consideration has shown agriculture income of Rs 38,76,456/- in his return of income filed on 30.03.2015, In order to verify the genuineness of the declared agriculture income the assessee vide notice u/s 142(1) dated 10.11.2016 was required to furnish the documentary evidence regarding land holding sale bill of crops jamabandi and girdawari report in support of the same. However, despite providing various reasonable opportunities, the assessee has failed to furnish any of the above required details and documents, In the circumstances, the claim of agriculture income remained unverified. Accordingly, the same was treated as unexplained other sources income and added to the total income of the assessee. When the matter carried before the ld. CIT(A) he also confirmed the view of the ld. AO as there also the assessee has not produced any Printed from counselvise.com MA No. 24/JP/2025 Dashrath Kumar Sharma vs.ITO 12 documentary evidence regarding land holding, sale bills of crops, Jamabandi and Girdawari report etc. to support the claim of agricultural income. The bench noted that the only reasons advanced for not considering the income of the assessee under the head agricultural income because the assessee could not support the claim with supporting evidence which was though shown in the original return of income filed. The Bench noted that the said claim of agricultural income since withdrawn by filling the revised computation of income and thereby he has not claimed any credit of the income to that extent and we have already considered the facts as to why the income was overstated by the assessee based on the wrong advise and therefore, revising the income whereby the agricultural income was not claimed by the assessee the same cannot be added in the income of the assessee and that claim is supported by filling the revised computation at the time of assessment proceedings thus the claim of the assessee cannot be denied. We get support on this issue from the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Vs. Babubhai Ramanbhai Patel [ 84 taxmann.com 32 (Gujarat) where in the court has held that ; 6. Sub-section (5) of Section 139, therefore, gives right to an assessee who has furnished a return under sub-section (1) or sub- section (4) to revise such return on discovery of any omission or a wrong statement. Such revised return, however, can be filed before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier. This is precisely what the assessee did while exercising the right to revise the return. Sub-section (5) of Section 139 does not envisage a situation whereupon revising the return if a case for loss arises which the assessee wishes to carry forward, the same would be impermissible. In terms, sub-section (5) of Section 139 allows the assessee to revise the return filed under subsection (1) or sub- section (4) as long as the time frame provided therein is adhered to and the requirement of the revised return has arisen on discovery of any omission or a wrong statement in the return originally filed. Accepting the contention of the revenue would amount to limiting the scope of revising the return already filed by the assessee flowing from sub-section (5). No such language or intention flows from such provision. Considering the overall facts and submission placed on record we direct the ld. AO to delete the addition made on account of unexplained Printed from counselvise.com MA No. 24/JP/2025 Dashrath Kumar Sharma vs.ITO 13 agricultural income as the assessee has not claimed the credit of that income and the earlier claim was withdrawn before the assessing officer by filling the revised computation of income which cannot be ignored Thus, we direct the ld. AO to delete the addition of Rs. 38,76,456/- Based on these observations ground no. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed. Considering that mistake which we have rectified as above and thus the para 12 be read as above. In the result, Miscellaneous Application is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 06/08/2025 Sd/- Sd/- ¼ Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ ¼ jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 06/08/2025 *Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Shri Dashrath Kumar Sharma, Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward 7(4), Jaipur 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) 5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (MA No. 24/JP/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "