For typographical error assessee has to invoke Rectification u/s 154 not Appellate Jurisdiction

For typographical error assessee has to invoke Section 154 not Appellate Jurisdiction to rectify mistakes committed during assessment proceedings – ITAT

ABCAUS Case Law Citation
ABCAUS 3626 (2022) (12) ITAT

In the instant case, the assessee had challenged the order passed by the CIT(A) in sustaining the additions.

The ground of the assessee inter alia was that the CIT(A) had failed to appreciate typo error which was also present on record.

The CIT(A) was of the opinion that the assessee was free to move rectification application u/s 154 of the the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) to the A.O. Accordingly, dismissed the appeal.

The assessee submitted that due to clerical mistake, in return of income (ITR) capital introduction was wrongly added to exempt income. Although capital account was provided to the AO but the same was not considered.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee had made a submission before the CIT(A) to allow the assessee to rectify his mistake u/s 154 of the Act.  Considering the admitted error of the assessee, the CIT (A) had rightly provided liberty to the assessee to move rectification application u/s 154 of the Act before the A.O.

The ITAT opined that if there is any typographical error the assessee has to invoke the Section 154 of the Act and not the Appellate Jurisdiction to rectify the mistakes committed during the assessment proceedings.   

The ITAT opined that the order of the CIT(A) was neither erroneous nor had any legal infirmity in providing the liberty to more rectification application u/s 154 of the Act before A.O.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• Software had nexus with generation of profits, purchaser can’t be said a consumer – SC
• Termination upheld of Postmaster who embezzled money by mere stamping passbooks
• Supreme Court stays DGGI order on the issue of two parallel GST proceedings
• Assessee can’t be said to indulged in penny stock sale without showing his involvement
• Before staying CESTAT order High Court should have framed substantial questions of law – SC