YOGITA DHIREN GORADIA, MUMBAI V. CIT (A), NFAC, DELHI

ITA 2892/MUM/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Yogita Dhiren Goradia, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which upheld the addition of Rs.72,90,000 to her income for the Assessment Year 2015-16. This addition was based on a clerical error in her income tax return, where she inadvertently entered her professional income as Rs.81,00,051 instead of the correct amount, Rs.8,10,051. The Tribunal found that this error was a result of a 'punching error' and not a deliberate act, as evidenced by the correct amount reflected in Form No.26AS and the tax deducted at source. The Tribunal referenced a similar case, Shrikant Real Estates (P) Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer-4(3)(4), Mumbai, to support its decision to rectify the error and remove the erroneous tax demand.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 302429 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-01-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 11-01-2023
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 14-11-2022
• Other Referred Cases: Shrikant Real Estates (P) Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer-4(3)(4), Mumbai
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Tax effect; TDS; Capital Gains
• Section: 154; 143(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘G‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2892/Mum/2022 (Asse ssment Year :2015-16) Yogita Dhiren Goradia D-102, 1 st Floor Emerald Apartments Parsi Panchayat Road Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 056 Vs. CIT(A)-NFAC Room No.245-A North Block New Delhi – 110 001 PAN/GIR No.ABAPS2464D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Darshak Shah Revenue by Shri Ajay Jadeja Singh Date of Hearing 12/01/2023 Date of Pronouncement 31/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA No. 2892/Mum/2022 for A.Y.2015-16 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) in appeal No. CIT(A)-46, Mumbai/10063/2018-19 dated 07/09/2022 (ld. CIT(A) in short) against the order of assessment passed u/s.154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- ITA No.2892/Mum/2022 Yogita Dhiren Goradia 2 “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),NFAC has erred accepting the action of AO in rejecting rectification application to AO filed u/s 154 of IT Act. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),NFAC has erred in accepting the addition of amount Rs. 72,90,000 (81,00,051/- less 8,10,051/-) on the ground that assessee herself has offered the amount in the return of income due to human error while filling the ITR On the facts and circumstances of the case the said addition ought to be deleted 3. Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal and submit further details and explanations at the time of hearing on the matters stated in the appeal. 4. Any other ground shall be prayed at the time of hearing. B) Tax effect relating to each Ground of appeal: Income from profession inadvertently considered as Rs. 81,00,051/- due to human error which leads to raising of an erroneous demand of Rs 22,32,323/-.” 3. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The short point that is to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Revenue was justified in confirming the addition of Rs.72,90,000/- (Rs.81,00,051 – Rs.8,10,051) towards income from profession of the assessee in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3.1. The assessee pleaded that while filling up the income tax return, the assessee had committed the punching error by mentioning the professional fee of Rs.81,00,051/- erroneously as against the actual fee of Rs.8,10,051/-. In fact even in Form No.26AS, it is very clearly mentioned that assessee has received professional fee from Power Tech Services only in the sum of Rs.8,10,051/- and which has been duly subjected to deduction of tax at source @10% amounting to Rs. 8,10,05/-. This clinching evidence goes to prove categorically that assessee had indeed made punching error only while filling the income tax return by adding one more ‘0’ (Zero). This punching error was not taken cognizance by the ITA No.2892/Mum/2022 Yogita Dhiren Goradia 3 ld. CPC while processing the return u/s.143(1) of the Act though the correct figure is mentioned in Form No.26AS which is also generated automatically from the Income Tax website. Since the assessee had filed its original return of income belatedly on 13/02/2016, the assessee was prevented from filing the revised return. Hence, the assessee filed a rectification petition u/s.154 of the Act before the ld. CPC which was not accepted. We have gone through the bank account summary of the assessee for the whole year which are enclosed in pages 14 & 15 of the paper book wherein it is evident that assessee has actually received professional income from Power Tech Services only to the tune of Rs.7,62,444/- net of TDS. Hence, the addition that has been made due to punching error had resulted in a scenario of assessee getting taxed on an income which he had never earned. The assessee has also filed an affidavit in this regard admitting the punching error that had crept in while filling the income tax return. This affidavit is enclosed in page 16 of the paper book. 3.2. We find under similar circumstances, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal had an occasion to consider the negligible error that had crept in, in the electronic filing of returns in the case of Shrikant Real Estates (P) Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer-4(3)(4), Mumbai reported in 140 ITD 155 wherein it was held as under:- 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities and the copy of the revised e-return filed by the assessee. In the present system of e-filing of return which is totally depended upon the usage of software, It is possible that some clerical errors may occur at the time of entering the data in the electronic form. The return is prepared electronically which is converted into an XML file either through the free down loaded software provided by the CBDT or by the softwares available in the market. In either of the case, there is every possibility of entering incorrect data without having the expert knowledge of preparing an XML file. XML file so created is uploaded to the official Website i.e. www.Incometaxindiaefiling.gov.in. Once the return is uploaded ITR-V , which is the acknowledgement of the return so filed , is generated by the system itself and if , the return is not signed digitally, then ITA No.2892/Mum/2022 Yogita Dhiren Goradia 4 ITR-V so generated has to be signed and sent to Central Processing Centre, Bangluru within 120 days. 8. Keeping in mind this system of e-filing of the returns , Coming back to the facts of the case, we find that the assessee has claimed Short Term Capital Gains and has shown it in the revised e-return but the same figure did not appear under the item where the short term capital gain is to be taxed at special rate u/s. 111A of the Act i.e. internal page-19 of the return under Schedule CG – Capital gains under item No. 7. However, at the same time we find that under Schedule SI- income chargeable to income tax at special rates IB which is at internal P-24 of the return, the assessee has shown Short Term Capital Gains (iiia) special rate 10% income Rs. 2,65,853 tax thereon Rs. 26585/- which clearly establishes that the assessee has shown Short Term Capital Gains liable to be taxed at special rate of 10%. Accordingly, reversing the finding of the Ld. CIT(A), we direct the AO to allow credit of the Short Term Capital gains subject to special rate of tax as per provisions of Sec. 111A of the Act and rectify the intimation u/s. 143(1) accordingly. 3.3. In view of our aforesaid observations and respectfully following the decision of this Tribunal referred to supra, we direct the ld. AO to delete the addition made in the sum of Rs.72,90,000/- due to punching error. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 4. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 31/01/2023 by way of proper mentioning in the notice board. Sd/- (AMIT SHUKLA) Sd/- (M.BALAGANESH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 31/01/2023 KARUNA, sr.ps ITA No.2892/Mum/2022 Yogita Dhiren Goradia 5 Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), Mumbai. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. //True Copy//