ROHIT SUKHRAM KANDHARI ,MUMBAI V. DCIT, -1(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4505/MUM/2025

AI Insights

Rohit Sukhram Kandhari appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which affirmed an intimation by the CPC that erroneously doubled his reported rental income due to a software glitch. Initially, the assessee reported a rental income of Rs. 6,40,099, but due to a software error, it was recorded twice, leading to a tax assessment of Rs. 12,80,198. The CPC later rectified this error, adjusting the income to Rs. 6,44,299. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as the rectification resolved the issue.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 825297 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Appeal Filed On: 15-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VINOD KUMAR; LD.
• Assessee Lawyers: RITURAJ GURJAR; LD
• Keywords: Rectification of order
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.4505/M/2025 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Rohit Sukhram Kandhari, Plot No. 61, Brillanto House, Road No.13, MIDC, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400093. PAN – AADPK 3631 Q Vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (CIT(A)/DCIT -1 (2) (1), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Rituraj Gurjar, Ld. AR Revenue by : Shri Vinod Kumar, Ld. SR. D.R. Date of Hearing : 19.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 30.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 27.05.2025, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2021-22. 2. In the instant case, the assessee has earned rental income of Rs. 6,40,099/-, however, while preparing and filing the ITR, due to glitch in software and inadvertently mentioned the said income of 6,40,099/- in ITR twice, mentioning single property in two columns. Whereas it is a fact that the assessee has earned the rental income of Rs. 6,40,009/- only. However, the CPC, processed the return filed by the assessee on dated 13.03.2022, vide intimation dated 22.04.2022, whereby the income from house property has been Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4505/M/2025 Rohit Sukhram Kandhari 2 determined to the tune of Rs. 12,80,198/- and therefore, the assessee being aggrieved challenged the said intimation by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, who vide impugned order dated 22.05.2025 dismissed the appeal of the assessee, affirming the intimation dated 22.04.2022 under Section 143 (1) determining the total income of Rs. 6,85,560/- and the income from house property to the tune of Rs. 12,80,198/-. 3. The assessee, therefore, being aggrieved has challenged the impugned order by filing this appeal. 4. During the pendency of appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee also filed a rectification application under Section 154 of the Act on dated 23.06.2025 and requested for rectification of the order/intimation dated 22.04.2022, reiterating the aforesaid facts such as reporting one rental property under two separate heads inadvertently and/or technical glitch occurred technically and unintentionally, while filing the return, which resulted into double inclusion of the same income. 5. This Court observe from the order dated 23.06.2025 passed by the CPC under Section 154 of the Act, the CPC has already rectified its mistake and determined the Assessee’s income from property to the tune of Rs. 6,44,299/- only, more or less accepting the rectification application filed by the assessee. Thus, no grievance is left open. 6. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, as the CPC vide rectification order dated 23.06.2025 has accepted the contention of the assessee and accordingly, rectified the mistake, the appeal filed by the assessee is liable to be dismissed being infructuous. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4505/M/2025 Rohit Sukhram Kandhari 3 7. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed being infructuous. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.12.2025. Sd/- (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) JUDICIAL MEMBER Tarun Kushwaha Sr. Private Secretary. Copy to: The Appellant The Respondent The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai The DR Concerned Bench //True Copy// By Order Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai. Printed from counselvise.com "