Naveen Nath Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)
The Pune ITAT granted relief to an Indian Army jawan whose income was wrongly assessed at ₹45.27 lakh merely because his tax consultant accidentally typed an extra “0” while filing the return. The assessee’s actual salary as per Form 16 and Form 26AS was only ₹4.67 lakh, but the return reflected salary income of ₹46.77 lakh due to a clear typographical error.
The Tribunal noted that even senior army officers were not drawing such salary during the relevant year and observed that the mistake was obvious from the records themselves. The Revenue also fairly accepted that it was a genuine error.
Interestingly, the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal on a mere technical defect in Form 35, without addressing the glaring factual mistake. The ITAT criticised this approach and held that substantive justice cannot be denied over technicalities.
Accepting the assessee’s plea, the ITAT directed the AO to compute income at ₹4,67,790 instead of ₹46,77,900, thereby deleting the absurd tax demand raised merely because of a clerical mistak
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE
This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2018-19dated 26.08.2025 emanating from the Assessment Order passed under section 143(1) of the Act, dated 23.10.2019. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :
“1. The Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore (AO) without going into the facts has assessed the income of the appellant at an income of 45,27,900.00.
2. The Ld. AO missed to note and failed to appreciate that the Consultant of the Appellant while filing return of income due to typographical error had inadvertently punched another “0” in the return of income.
3. The Ld. AO completed the assessment at an income of ₹ 45,27,900.00 without caring to cross check that the Appellant is a jawan in the armed forces and cannot have salary of this amount.
4. The Ld. AO missed to cross check the income returned without cross checking the same from the data available with the Income Tax Department.
5. That the impugned order is bad in law and not in consonance with facts, and against the principles of natural justice.
6. Besides the above grounds the appellant craves to leave, add, alter, amend, and/or to modify any Grounds of Appeal, in the circumstances of the matter.”
Submission of ld.AR :
