MONICA CAPOOR,GURGAON V. ITO-WARD - 2(4), GURGAON

ITA 4286/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Monica Capoor, a 75-year-old retired school teacher, who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi, which upheld an erroneous adjustment made by the Central Processing Centre (CPC) under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The adjustment incorrectly computed a Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) of Rs.2,79,79,26,466/- due to a typographical error by her Chartered Accountant. The CIT(A) dismissed her appeal, leading to her appeal before the Tribunal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471509 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Other Referred Cases: T. S. Balaram, Income Tax ... vs M/S. Volkart Brothers, Bombay, Town Vividoddesha Sahakari Bhandara ... vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Tumkur
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BALJIT KAUR
• Assessee Lawyers: MANAS SHANKAR RAY; YASHENDRA SINGHWAL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Additional evidence; Capital Gains; Principle of natural justice; Rectification of order; Transactions in derivatives
• Section: 154; 143(1); 139(1); 13; 44AB

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4286/Del/2024 [Assessment Year: 2020-21] Monica Capoor, G-32, Ridgewood Estate, DLF Phase-IV, Haryana-122008 Vs ITO, Ward-2(4), HSIIDC Building, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Haryana-122008 PAN-AAIPC5019P Assessee Revenue Assessee by Dr. Manas Shankar Ray, Adv. & Mr. Yashendra Singhwal, Adv. Revenue by Ms. Baljit Kaur, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 19.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement 31.01.2025 ORDER PER BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, AM, This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.07.2024 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2020-21, arising out of order dated 22.06.2023 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Gurgaon, under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’). 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:- 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the erroneous adjustment made by the CPC under Section 143(1), which incorrectly computed an LTCG of Rs.2,79,68,49,392/-, based on a typographical error in Schedule CG of the return of income filed by the office of the appellant's CA. 2 ITA No.4286/Del/2024 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the mistake in reporting Rs.2,79,79,26,466/- in Schedule CG was a bona fide typographical error made by the office of the appeltant's CA while filing the return of income. The mistake was clearly explained and demonstrated in the rectification applications, but both the Ld. AO and CIT(A) ignored all submissions backed by evidences. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not allowing the appellant's right to submit additional evidence under Rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1962, including copy of demat account ledger and bank statements, to demonstrate the nature of the mistake, thereby denying the appellant a fair opportunity to present her case. The Ld. CIT(A) has also ignored the audited final accounts alongwith audit report u/s 44AB of the I. T. Act, 1961 filed in this case which correctly depicts the assessee's financial transactions for the year. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by holding that the error did not constitute a mistake apparent from the record under Section 154 without recognizing that the impugned adjustment made by CPC was based on a typographical error made by the office of the appellant's CA, resulting in misreading of the return by the CPC, which was evident from the records, and should have been corrected under Section 154. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding an unjust and huge tax demand of Rs.42,13,17,560/- without any basis, which has caused undue hardship to the appellant, who is a 75 years' old retired school teacher with limited income. This demand is based solely on a typographical error in the IT return and should have been annulled at the first instance.” 3. Brief facts of the case:- The assessee Ms. Monica Capoor, is 75 years old and earlier she worked as trained graduate teacher in Physics and Mathematics with Modern School, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, wherefrom she retired in the year 2009. The assessee filed her return of income for the Assessment Year 2020-21 on 13.02.2021 showing total Loss of (-) Rs.10,70,654 as per the Computation of Income, consisting of income from consultancy for publication of text books at Rs.19,86,349/- and loss from derivative trading in futures & options at Rs.30,56,102/-. According to the assessee, the return was prepared and filed by the office 3 ITA No.4286/Del/2024 of her Chartered Accountant (\"CA\") and a copy of the Assessee's Tax Audit report in Form 3CB-CD with final accounts was also filed in the Income Tax portal on 13.02.2021. Subsequently, on 13.11.2021, a notice under section 143(1)(a) of Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued by the Central Processing Centre (\"Ld. CPC\") proposing adjustment of Rs.2,79,79,26,466 by way of income from Long Term Capital Gains (\"LTCG\") stating that \"In Schedule CG, Sl. No.5 is not equal to sum total of amount at Column no.14 of schedule 112A. Hence, higher of the following amounts will be adopted for Sl. 5 of schedule 112A :- (i)Column no 14 of schedule 112A or (ii) Amount entered at Sl. No.5.\" 3.1. In reply, the assessee submitted that the figure of Rs.2,79,79,26,466/- had been inadvertently and erroneously typed by the CA's office under Schedule CG in Column 5(a) of Form No. ITR-3 while filing the tax return and no impact on computation of income was shown in the software at the time of preparation of the return. As a result, the said figure of Rs.2,79,79,26,466/- which was inserted unintentionally in the said Schedule CG did not come to notice and remained undetected at the time of uploading the return. The same was not accepted by the CPC, Bangalore and intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act was issued on 16.11.2021, wherein, an addition of Rs.2,79,79,26,466/- was made on account of LTCG and consequently a demand of Rs.42,13,17,560/- was raised against the assessee. 3.2. The assessee filed two separate rectification petitions u/s 154 of the Act, one on the Income Tax Portal on 11.12.2022 and the other to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), Ward 2(1), Gurgaon vide letter 4 ITA No.4286/Del/2024 dated 12.12.2022. In the said rectification application, it was submitted that \"At the time of filing of the Income Tax Return an amount of Rs.2,79,79,26,466/- was wrongly mentioned in Schedule No.5 (Schedule CG) and no impact was shown in the software at the time of preparation of the Income Tax Return. Further, it was submitted that the amount which was inserted wrongly and unintentionally did not come to notice while the return was uploaded. The assessee also filed a copy of Transaction Sheet (Ledger Account) with the brokers Zerodha Commodities Pvt. Ltd and HDFC Securities Ltd. alongwith summary of Transactions, Bank statements, and copy of Tax Audit report in Form 3CB - CD as evidence of not having earned any income by way of Capital Gains during the year. However, the CPC vide order u/s 154 of the Act dated 26.12.2022 disposed of the said rectification application dated 11.12.2022, wherein the addition of 22,79,68,49,390/- and the demand of 242,13,15,450/- were maintained. Thereafter, JAO [ITO- Ward 2(4), Gurgaon] vide order dated 26.06.2023 rejected the manual rectification application dated 12.12.2022 filed by the Assessee by stating that since the CPC had already disposed of the issue, no further action could be taken on the rectification application. 3.3. Aggrieved with the said order of the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. 4. The ld. CIT(A) did not accept the plea of the assessee and dismissed the appeal by observing in para no.6 on pages 8 to 14, which are reproduced as under:- 5 ITA No.4286/Del/2024 “6. DECISION:- The order u/s 154, statement of facts and the submission furnished by the appellant have been considered. 6.1. The appellant is an Individual deriving income from business and other sources. The appellant is also seen to be doing trading in shares, securities etc. In AY 2020-21, the appellant has filed return of income on 13/02/2021 disclosing loss of Rs 10,85,987/-. The appellant is aggrieved by the adjustment made by CPC while processing the return of income filed for AY 2020-21 wherein the income of the appellant was enhanced from loss of Rs 10,85,987/- to income of Rs 279,68,49,392/- entirely taxable u/s 112A of the Income Tax Act. The following details of adjustment made were given in the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. Adjustment u/s 143(1)(a) The appellant in the appeal filed the and more particularly in the Statement of facts, has stated that by mistake an amount of R$ 279,79,26,466/- was included in the Schedule 5 related to CG. The appellant claims that there was no impact of the wrong inclusion in the Schedule 5 at the time of filing of return. Hence, it is claimed that the figure should not have been included in the income of the appellant while processing the return. In submission filed in appellate proceedings, the Appellant has stated that she has done derivative trading, Future and Option Trading (F&O)through Zerodha Brokers Limited (Zerodha Brokers) and HDFC Securities Limited(HDFC Securities) and earning income therefrom. During the year, the Appellant has informed that she incurred losses of Rs. 30,56, 1021- through F&0 and treated this loss as a business loss. While filing the income tax return in Form No. ITR-3, under Schedule CG in column 5(a), Rs. 2,79,79,26,4661-has wrongly been shown as LTCG under section112A. The appellant claims that even in the computation of taxable income, this amount was not shown, and the software has also not picked up this item wrongly reported income for levy of tax. The Appellant has stated that she has not earned any Long-Term Capital Gain during the year and this figure has been 6 ITA No.4286/Del/2024 mentioned wrongly while filing the income tax return. The Appellant claims to have responded online to CPC, Bengaluru twice; once on dated 16-II-2022 and thereafter on 10-02-2022 on the Portal of Income Tax Department for incorrect levy of tax and disagreed with the demand. The appellant has filed an application for rectification before the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as JAO) on 12/12/2022. The same was rejected by the JAO vide order dated 22/06/2023. On going through the order, it is seen that the JAO has observed as under: - \"Please refer to your application u/s 154 of the Act dated 12.12.2022 filed in this office on 12.12.2022. Your application u/s 154 filed before the CPC on 11.12.2022 against the intimation order issuedby CPC u/s 143(1) of the Act on 16.12.2021 raising a demand of Rs.42, 13,70,560/- has already been disposed off by the CPC vide order dated 11.12.2022. Therefore, no action can be taken on your application filed in this office.\" The appellant has come in appeal against the aforesaid order. In the appeal filed the appellant has sought to submit as additional evidence under Rule 46A of the I T Act, the Bank Statements, DMAT Statement, Contact Notes and statements of stock brokers. It is pertinent to note that appeal is against a rectification order passed on the intimation u/s 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. The intimation is generated after processing of the return of income filed by the tax payer and limited adjustments are permitted to the returned income and the tax credits claimed in the return of income filed. It is settled law that u/s 143(1) of the IT Act, there is no verification of the claims made in the return of income or reference to any information in any documents apart from the information available in return of income filed. Therefore, the documents now sought to be adduced under Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules do not form part and parcel process u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. The provisions of Sec 154 of the Income Tax Act permit rectification of prima facie mistakes apparent from the records available while passing the order sought to be rectified. The processing done of the return filed by the appellant was on the basis of information available in the return of income and no additional documents were referred to. Therefore, the appellant's request for adducing additional evidence in form of Bank Statements, DMAT Statement, Contact Notes and statements of stock brokers is not tenable. Under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, the appellant is required to give plausible reason for its failure to submit documents in the proceedings which resulted in the order appealed against. Primarily, no documents in addition to the return filed were permissible in the rectification 7 ITA No.4286/Del/2024 proceedings of intimation u/s 143(1)(a) of the IT Act. So, there cannot be any failure to submit documents or case of refusal by AO to accept the evidence. Therefore, the application for additional evidence sought to be admitted is not tenable. The same is rejected & TAX DEPP The Grounds of appeal raised by the appellant and the submission made has been reproduced in the opening paragraphs of this order. The Grounds raised are decided as under: - (i) Ground (1): - \"That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order passed by Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) is bad in law, violative of principles of natural justice and void ab-initio.\" The appellant has not made any specific reference to any fact of the case or position of law to conclude that the order of rejection of its application u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act was bad in law and passed in violation of principles of natural justice. It is seen from the order passed that appellant had made a similar application before the CPC, Bangalore on 11/12/2022. The said application was disposed of on the same day. As such, the appellant's request for restoring her returned income had been examined decided in past. The appellant was required to file any appeal against the said order passed on 11/12/2022. The appellant has chosen to file a fresh rectification application on 12/12/2022 before the JAO. In the order under appeal, passed by JAO no fresh averment appears to have been made by the appellant, due to which the prima facie mistake in the intimation was highlighted and a compelling case for rectifying the mistake was made out. The rectification order passed by the JAO is brief and lacks clarity. The appellant has claimed in the submission filed in appellate proceedings that explanation submitted by her was not considered in the rectification proceedings and has not been discussed while passing the order. But the explanation of the appellant which is stated to have been ignored as per the submission filed did not arise from the details mentioned in the return of income filed. Therefore, the action of rejection of the rectification application is found to be in keeping with the provisions of Sec 154 of the I T Act. The Ground of Appeal No (01) is found to be general and shall be disposed of on disposal of the other specific grounds ii) The Ground Nos (2) and (3) are on the issue of adjustment made u/s 143(1) of the I T Act and its rectification. Hence, the grounds are decided together: - 8 ITA No.4286/Del/2024 Ground No (2): \"That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has erred in law in view of the fact that the explanation was duly provided to them vide letter dated12.12.2022 for which he was fully satisfied and no further query or any explanation or any further information was ever desired by him during the course.\" Ground No (03): -\"That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld AO has erred in law in making the addition of Rs. 2,79,79,26,466/-, which was wrongly mentioned in Schedule No.5(Schedule CG) and no impact was shown in the software at the time of preparation of the Income Tax Return.\" The submission of the appellant has been considered vis-à-vis the return of income filed. It can be seen from the return of income filed and the statement of facts filed by the appellant that the figure of Rs.2,79,79,26,466/- was incorporated in the Schedule \"CG\", Part (B) at Sr No (05) related to, \"LTCG u/s 112A (column 14 of Schedule 112A)\". The entry in this column, is the amount of Long-Term Capital Gain earned during the year on the transfer of a long-term capital asset being an equity share in a company or a unit of an equity- oriented fund or a unit of a business trust. This figure is subsequently included in the aggregation of the Long- Term Capital Gain eared from all sources at Sr No (14) of Schedule CG, Part B and in Schedule CG, Part C. Thus, it is clear that the appellant in a valid return filed u/s 139(1) of the I T Act has disclosed the amount of Rs 2,79,79,26,466/- as Long-Term Capital Gain earned from sale of a long-term capital asset being an equity share in a company or a unit of an equity-oriented fund or a unit of a business trust. In the circumstances, the CPC while processing the return has included this LTCG in the aggregation of total income in the Computation. The same would fall in the category of an arithmetical error while aggregating income from different sources under the Income Tax Act. The appellant in its submission has claimed that this figure was not picked up by the e-filing software at the time of 9 ITA No.4286/Del/2024 preparation of the return and its subsequent validation of the return. This aspect has been examined from the return of income filed by the appellant. It is seen from the Computation of Income in Part B-T1(Computation of Income), that figure of Long-Term Capital Gain u/s 112A of the | T Act is at Sr No 4(b)(ii) of the said computation of income. This figure is adopted from the entry at \"gii of item E of schedule CG\". On going through the return of income filed by the appellant, it is seen that the chart appearing at the said location is left blank by the appellant. Hence, no figure has been picked up by the e-filing software while filing the return. Therefore, in addition to the mistake admitted by the appellant of mistakenly including Rs 2,79,79,26,466/- in the Schedule CG, the appellant also made the mistake of not filing the Sr No 9(ii) of Item E of Schedule CG. Therefore, the appellant's claim that the e-filing software also did not adopt the income in computation is not a valid prima facie error which would bring the adjustment in ambit of rectification. The CPC while processing the return of income filed, has treated its as a valid return of income and made the adjustment of arithmetic error which is permitted u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. In this background, there is no mistake apparent from records which can be rectified under the provisions of Sec 154 of the Income Tax Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T. S. Balaram, Income Tax ... vs M/S. Volkart Brothers, Bombay reported in 1971AIR 2204 has decided as under: - \"From what has been said above, it is clear that the question whether S. 17(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was applicable to the case of the first respondent is not free from doubt. Therefore the Income-tax Officer was not justified in thinking that on that question there can be no two opinions. It was not open to the Income-tax Officer to go into the true scope of the relevant provisions of the Act in a proceeding under S. 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. A mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not, something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. As seen earlier, the High Court of Bombay opined that the original assessments were in accordance with law though in our opinion the High Court was not justified in going into that question. In Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde and ors. v. Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale (1) this Court while Spelling out the scope of the power of a High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution ruled that an error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record-see Sidhamappav.. 10 ITA No.4286/Del/2024 Commissioner- of Income-tax, Bombay (2). The power of the officers mentioned in S. 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to correct \"any mistake apparent from the record\" is (1) [1960] 1 S.C.R. 890.\" In the case of Town VividoddeshaSahakariBhandara... vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Tumkur, the Hon'ble ITAT, Bangalore in ITA No 1089/Bang/2023 held as under: - \"the issue is highly debatable and by no stretch of imagination can be termed as a mistake apparent on the record. Only an obvious and patent mistake which can be established not by a long drawn process of reasoning alone can be subjected to rectification proceedings u/s. 154 of the Act. In this case, there is nothing on record to suggest that the assessee had violated the principles of mutuality and has been dealing with non-members. Therefore, we are of the view that the issue raised in this appeal is not a mistake apparent on record which is amenable to rectification u/s. 154 of the Act. In this context, we rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T.S. Balaram v. Volkart Brothers, 82 ITR 50\" It is clear from the above decisions that for a mistake to come within the purview of Sec 154 of the I T Act, the mistake has to be obvious and apparent from record. In the appellant's case, the Long Term Capital Gain has been shown by the appellant in a valid return filed u/s 139(1) of the I T Act. From, the face of the record, there is no apparent mistake in the intimation u/s 143(1)(a) of the I T Act in so far as the LTCG disclosed in schedule had not been included in the Computation of Income for aggregation. Hence, it was a permissible adjustment u/s 143(1) of the | T Act. Hence, there is no mistake in the order passed by the CPC on 11/12/2022 rejecting the appellant's rectification application or in the impugned order passed by the JAO. Hence, the Ground of Appeal No (02) fails. iii) Ground No (04) - \"That the Ld. AO erred in not appreciating the explanations, justification made by the appellant and the rejection order passed on whimsy rounds totally with a biased approach.\" The ground raised by the appellant is without any basis in so far as the explanation given for the rectification was entirely based on external material not contained in the return of income. The adjustment made was permissible under the provisions of Sec 143(1) of the Income Tax Act as discussed above. Hence, the contention of the appellant that the rejection order is based on whimsy grounds and is biased in nature is incorrect. The Ground of Appeal is rejected. 11 ITA No.4286/Del/2024 (iv) Ground No (05) - \"That the order so framed u/s 154 of the I.T. Act1961 is totally based on mere surmises and conjectures and there by devoid of the principles of natural justice.\" It is clear from the discussion made while deciding ground nos (02) & (03) that the basis for the adjustment was the information given by the appellant in the return of income and there are no surmises or conjectures involved. Moreover, the rejection of the appellant's application is based on settled legal position supported by legal precedents. Hence, the ground of appeal no (05) is rejected. (v) Ground No (06):-That the order so framed by the Ld. Assessing Officer is bad in law against facts (to the extent as elaborated above) and needs to be quashed. The ground raised is repetitive in nature and has been discussed in sub-para (i) above. The substance of the appellant's appeal has been examined in the forgoing and the contentions made were found to be inconsistent with the factual and legal position on the issue. Hence, this ground raised also fails along with other grounds raised. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is DISMISSED.” 5. Against the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. The ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the Ld. CIT(A) and referred to the written submission filed on page no.1 to 6 of the paper book and supporting documents from page nos. 7 to 233 of the paper book. The Ld. AR submitted that due to typographical error by the Chartered Accountant of the assessee in reporting an amount of Rs.279,68,49,390/- in Schedule CG (LTCG), the assessee should not be taxed in respect of the said amount and only her real income should be taxed. He, therefore, submitted that typographical error in reporting of the figures in Schedule ‘CG’ (LTCG) amounting to Rs.279,68,49,390/- should be ignored and the income should be accepted at total loss of 12 ITA No.4286/Del/2024 Rs.10,70,654/- as filed by the assessee. In this regard, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the affidavit dated 26.09.2024 (placed at page no.211 to 213 of the paper book) filed by Shri Rashmi Ranjan Jati, the Chartered Accountant of the assessee, who filed her return of income and in whose office the typographical error in reporting an amount of Rs.279,68,49,390/- in Schedule CG (LTCG) was committed. The said affidavit is reproduced as under:- 13 ITA No.4286/Del/2024 7. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR supported the orders of the authorities below. 14 ITA No.4286/Del/2024 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. On perusal of the affidavit dated 26.09.2024 by Shri Rashmi Ranjan Jati, Chartered Accountant, engaged by the assessee for the purpose of preparing and filing her Income Tax Return for AY 2020-21 in which in para no.3, it has been submitted that while filing her income tax return for AY 2020-21 (FY 2019-20), there was an inadvertent typographical error in the reporting of figures in Schedule CG (LTCG) and an amount of Rs.2,79,79,26,466/- was mistakenly entered in the said Schedule CG. It was further submitted that this error occurred solely due to an oversight while entering the figures by the concerned staff in their office, and the mistake was not discovered before the submission of the return. Therefore, the crux of the matter is about the veracity of this affidavit dated 26.09.2024 filed by Shri Rashmi Ranjan Jati, Chartered Accountant. The rectification order, against which the assessee had preferred an appeal, was passed u/s 154 of the Act on 22.06.2023. Further, the appellate order, against the said rectification order, was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) vide its order dated 29.07.2024. Therefore, the affidavit dated 26.09.2024 of the CA has not been verified by the lower authorities. Since, the affidavit and the facts stated therein requires verification, we, therefore, set-aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the AO for verification of the said affidavit and any other details/evidence submitted by the assessee in support of her contention that entry of Rs.279,79,26,466/- in Schedule CG (LTCG) of her return for AY 2020-21 was an inadvertent typographical error. If the contention of the assessee that entry of Rs.279,79,26,466/- in Schedule CG (LTCG) of her return for AY 2020-21 was an inadvertent typographical 15 ITA No.4286/Del/2024 error is found to be correct, then the AO will delete the addition of Rs.279,79,26,466/- and accept her return loss of Rs.10,70,654/-. 8.1. In this regard, the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) that such an error will not constitute a mistake apparent from record on the ground that the total income under the head capital gains was enhanced by the CPC in the order u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 16.12.2021 on the basis of entry of Rs.279,79,26,466/- in Schedule CG (LTCG) submitted by the assessee in her return of income for AY 2020-21. The same has been carefully considered but not found justified. It is held that any inadvertent misreporting of any income in the return of income filed by an assessee and which is suitably explained by the assessee amounts to a mistake apparent from record and is rectifiable under the provisions of section 154 of the Act. Further, while verifying the affidavit and other contentions of the assessee, the AO should also keep in mind that the assessee can be taxed only on the real income and should not be taxed on income due to inadvertent mistake made by the Chartered Accountant while filing her return of income. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 31st January, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- [ANUBHAV SHARMA] [BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 31.01.2025. f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ 16 ITA No.4286/Del/2024 Copy forwarded to: 1. Assessee 2. Respondent 3. PCIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi, "