Sushma Ramesh Rao Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore)
Wrong Year’s Figures Entered in Revised Return: Bangalore ITAT Reopens Demand Despite 58-Month Appeal Delay
The alleged professional error must be checked against both assessment years before the demand is decided
A revised return is meant to correct an earlier filing. What if it instead imports the next assessment year’s income and TDS figures into a return that had already been processed without demand? The Bangalore ITAT considered that situation in Sushma Ramesh Rao v. DCIT, ITA No. 1912/Bang/2026, order dated 21 September 2026, for AY 2019–20.
The assessee, a salaried taxpayer, said that her former chartered accountant filed a revised return for AY 2019–20 without her knowledge or authorisation, using particulars that belonged to AY 2020–21. Processing of that revised return generated a demand of approximately ₹2.16 lakh. She appealed only after discovering the demand several years later, but the CIT(A) dismissed her appeal as delayed. The Tribunal set aside that approach and sent the matter to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer to verify the returns and determine the correct income.
An original return with no demand, followed by a revised return
The assessee filed her original return for AY 2019–20 on 30 August 2019. Her case was that the original return correctly reflected her salary particulars and had been processed on 10 December 2019 without any demand or refund.
A revised return was subsequently filed in September 2020. The assessee contended that it carried income and TDS details for AY 2020–21, although it was filed as a revision for AY 2019–20. According to her, she had neither asked her then chartered accountant to make that revision nor reviewed it before filing. CPC processed the revised return by an intimation dated 8 December 2020 and raised a demand stated in the order as ₹2,15,625 or ₹2,15,630.
The assessee pointed to a further fact capable of testing her explanation. A belated return for AY 2020–21 was filed on 31 May 2021, allegedly containing the same figures that had been entered in the AY 2019–20 revised return. In her submission, this duplication showed that the revised return related to the wrong year and that the resulting demand was an artefact of the filing error.
The order also records a different aspect of the processing: it states that CPC denied a ₹60,000 deduction under section 80GG and charged interest under sections 234B and 234C. The exact components of the demand, therefore, required examination alongside the two returns.
Why the first appeal was filed years later
The assessee said she did not know that the revised return had been filed or that it had generated a demand. She claimed to have learned of it only while preparing her return for AY 2025–26, when her current tax consultant drew it to her attention. She then gathered the records and filed an appeal before the CIT(A) on 3 November 2025.
The appeal against the December 2020 intimation was delayed by more than 58 months. The CIT(A) refused to admit it, holding that sufficient cause had not been shown. The assessee maintained that, as a salaried taxpayer relying on a professional, she had no reason to suspect that a revised return containing another year’s particulars had been filed in her name.
Why the Tribunal set aside the appellate order
The Tribunal recognised the substantial delay but found a defect in how the condonation request had been decided. The CIT(A) had reproduced the assessee’s detailed explanation. Yet, rather than examining those particular circumstances and explaining why they did or did not constitute sufficient cause, the appellate order discussed case law and dismissed the appeal on limitation.
The Tribunal also observed that the CIT(A) had discussed aspects of the underlying facts while declining to admit the appeal. In the Tribunal’s view, the order could not be sustained without a proper consideration of the reasons given for the delay.
On the underlying dispute, the Tribunal considered verification essential. If particulars belonging to a subsequent year had indeed been placed in a revised return for an earlier year, they could produce an erroneous demand or even a refund. Whether that happened here could be established by comparing the original and revised AY 2019–20 returns with the AY 2020–21 return and the relevant income and TDS records. The Tribunal held that the jurisdictional AO was the appropriate authority to carry out that examination.
It therefore restored all grounds to the AO. The assessee must demonstrate why the revised return was incorrect and establish her correct income for AY 2019–20. The AO is to examine
Wrong Year’s Figures in a Revised Return, Demand Discovered Five Years Later: Bangalore ITAT Orders Verification
CIT(A) had to examine the explanation for delay; the AO must compare the returns for both assessment years
A revised return is intended to correct an earlier filing. What if it instead carries the income and TDS particulars of the following assessment year, creating a demand for a year whose original return had been processed without one? The Bangalore ITAT considered this unusual situation in Sushma Ramesh Rao v. DCIT, ITA No. 1912/Bang/2026, order dated 21 September 2026, for AY 2019–20.
The assessee said her former chartered accountant had filed a revised return for AY 2019–20 without her knowledge or authorisation, inserting particulars belonging to AY 2020–21. CPC processed that revised return and raised a demand of approximately ₹2.16 lakh. She said she learned of the demand only while filing her AY 2025–26 return. Her appeal to the CIT(A) was filed more than 58 months after the intimation and was dismissed as time-barred. The Tribunal set aside that appellate order and sent the dispute to the jurisdictional AO to verify the returns and determine the correct position.
The filing error alleged by the assessee
The assessee, a salaried taxpayer, filed her original return for AY 2019–20 on 30 August 2019. According to her appeal grounds, it was processed on 10 December 2019 without any demand or refund. She maintained that the original return correctly reported her income for that year.
A revised return was subsequently filed for AY 2019–20. Her case was that this return contained the income and tax deduction particulars of AY 2020–21, rather than corrected particulars for AY 2019–20. CPC processed it on 8 December 2020 and raised a demand stated in the order as approximately ₹2,15,625.
The assessee pointed to a further document capable of testing her explanation: a return for AY 2020–21 filed on 31 May 2021 allegedly carried the same figures that had been wrongly entered in the revised return for AY 2019–20. If the returns match as claimed, that would provide a concrete basis for examining whether the revised AY 2019–20 return contained another year’s particulars.
The order also records a different aspect of the CPC computation. It refers to a ₹60,000 deduction under section 80GG being denied and interest under sections 234B and 234C being charged. The Tribunal did not finally reconcile these processing details with the assessee’s explanation about the wrong year’s income and TDS. That is why the actual returns and intimations require examination together.
Why the first appeal failed
The appeal against the 8 December 2020 intimation was filed before the CIT(A) on 3 November 2025. The assessee explained that she had been unaware of the revised filing and had received no communication alerting her to the resulting demand. She said her present consultant discovered it during the filing of her AY 2025–26 return, after which she gathered the records and took steps to appeal.
The CIT(A) declined to condone the substantial delay and dismissed the appeal without granting relief. Before the Tribunal, the assessee challenged both the treatment of the delay and the demand generated from the allegedly incorrect return.
What the Tribunal found wanting
The Tribunal accepted that the first appeal had been filed approximately 58 months late. Its concern was with how the explanation for that delay had been dealt with. The CIT(A) had reproduced the assessee’s reasons and discussed aspects of the facts, but had not properly analysed whether those stated circumstances constituted sufficient cause. Instead, the order relied on case law to reject admission of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that, if the appellate authority was not satisfied with the cause shown, it should have addressed the actual reasons given for the delay. It therefore declined to sustain the CIT(A)’s order.
On the underlying demand, the Tribunal considered verification essential. It observed that entering a subsequent year’s details into a revised return could produce an incorrect demand or even an incorrect refund. The jurisdictional AO was directed to examine whether the figures in the revised AY 2019–20 return had in fact been incorporated in the AY 2020–21 return, and to decide the correctness of the assessee’s claim after she demonstrates what her proper AY 2019–20 income was. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes; the Tribunal did not itself cancel the demand.
Author’s comment
This order is useful where a return-filing error is capable of objective verification across assessment years. The assessee’s explanation does not rest only on an assertion that her consultant made a mistake. The original return, revised return, later year’s return, TDS particulars and both processing intimations can be compared to establish which year each figure belongs to and how the demand arose.
It also illustrates that, even with a delay as long as 58 months, the explanation offered must be examined on its own facts. The Tribunal did not declare that ignorance of a demand or a professional error always justifies such a delay. It required the dispute to be properly examined and the correct income and tax liability to be established from the records.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE
1. This appeal by MS Shushma Ramesh Rao [Assessee/Appellant] is directed against the order dated 27 February 2026 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–3 Ahmedabad [the ld CIT A] for Assessment Year 2019–20, which dismissed the Assessee’s appeal against the intimation dated 8 December 2020, issued under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act], by the Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru, on the ground that the appeal was filed belatedly without sufficient cause.
2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. The Appellant is an individual salaried taxpayer who filed her original return of income for Assessment Year 2019-20 on 30.08.2019 declaring total income of Rs. 26,27,210/-.
2. The said return was processed under Section 143(1) and accepted without any demand, confirming correctness of the returned income.
3. Subsequently, on 28.09.2020, a revised return was inadvertently filed by the Appellant’s then Chartered Accountant without her knowledge or authorization. The revised return erroneously contained income and TDS particulars relating to Assessment Year 2020-21 instead of AY 2019-20.
4. Based on the erroneous revised return, CPC processed the return under Section 143(1) on 08.12.2020 and raised a demand of Rs. 2,15,625/-.
5. The said revised return was not filed with the knowledge or consent of the Appellant and resulted solely from professional error on the part of the Chartered Accountant.
6. Thereafter, a belated return for AY 2020-21 was filed on 31.05.2021 containing identical figures that were wrongly reported in the revised return of AY 2019-20, conclusively establishing duplication of data between the two assessment years.
7. The Appellant came to know of the demand only during filing of return for AY 2025-26, after which immediate steps were taken to initiate appellate proceedings.
8. The Appellant filed appeal before the Addl./JCIT(A). However, the appeal was dismissed solely on the ground that there was delay of more than 58 months and the delay was not supported by sufficient cause under Section 249(3).
9. The learned Addl./JCIT(A) rejected the condonation petition and dismissed the appeal without adjudicating the merits of the case and without understanding that no such demand could be made as no tax was payable.
10. Being aggrieved by the said order dismissing the appeal in limine without considering the merits, the present appeal is filed before this Hon’ble Tribunal.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case show that the assessee is an individual who filed the return of income on 30 August 2019, where the due date of 31st of August 2019, showing income chargeable to tax of ₹ 3,252,572. The assessee revised the return, claiming a refund of ₹ 15,600, and it was processed on 8 December 2020, when the assessee was asked to pay ₹ 215,630. The computation of income, to the extent of gross total income, shows no difference. However, the assessee claimed a deduction under section 80GG of ₹ 60,000, which the central processing center denied; accordingly, the assessee was charged interest under sections 234B and 234C, and the tax demand was determined. The learned CIT – A dismissed the appeal.
4. According to the learned CIT – A, the appeal was instituted before him on 3 November 2025 against the intimation passed under section 143(1) of the Act on 8 December 2020, which was also stated to be received by the assessee on the same date. Therefore, the appeal was filed after a delay of more than 58 months. The reason stated for delay in filing of the appeal was that the assessee was completely unaware of the fact that the chartered accountant engaged by the assessee filed the revised return erroneously, stating that income particulars belonging to assessment year 2020 – 21 were incorporated in the revised return for assessment year 2019 – 21. The assessee was unaware of any such mistake that resulted in the demand. It was also claimed that no communication or intimation was received from the Income Tax Department by the assessee. She came to know about the existence of this demand only while filing her return of income for assessment year 2025 – 26, when her present tax consultant informed her about it. Therefore, upon coming to know of this fact, she immediately gathered all necessary documents and sent them to her current chartered accountant; accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal was beyond her control.
5. The learned CIT – A noted that though the assessee is a salaried employee with no technical expertise in taxation and has relied in good faith on her chartered accountant who filed her return of income. For assessment year 2019–20, the assessee filed her original return of income on 30 August 2019 within the due date, wherein the assessee accurately reported her salary income, which was duly processed under section 143 (1) on 10 December 2019, with no demand or refund, confirming the correctness of her filing. However, on 20 September 2020, her chartered accountant, who was engaged at that time without her knowledge or authorization, inadvertently filed a revised return for assessment year 2019–20, in which he did not identify any error in the original return of income. As per the revised return, it did not pertain to assessment year 2019–20; it contained income and tax deduction at source particulars pertaining to assessment year 2020–21. This caused a complete mismatch in the revenue records, and consequently the revised return was processed, and it generated a demand of ₹ 215,625. It was the claim of the assessee that the assessee did not review or consent to this erroneous filing, and the mistake arose solely due to professional negligence on the part of the chartered accountant; the assessee should not be penalized. Thereafter, on 31st May 21 the same CA filed a belated return for assessment year 2020–21, which exactly matched the figures wrongly reported in the revised return for assessment year 2019–20; the above mistakes happened. The learned CIT – A noted that the appeal filed before him was belated by 58 days and that no reasonable cause was shown; he dismissed the assessee’s appeal.
6. The assessee, aggrieved by the same, has preferred this appeal before us. The learned authorized representative, Shri Vijay Prabhu, Advocate, and Shri Sundeep H S, the learned Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax were heard.
7. Briefly stated, the assessee has challenged the order passed by the learned CIT – A for dismissing the appeal of the assessee filed beyond the time. All the 11 grounds represent the same grievance.
8. We find that the learned CIT – A has recorded the facts clearly, showing that the claim of the assessee is that the revised return filed by her was showing the income details for assessment, which is different from the assessment year involved. In this case, there is no doubt that there is a 58-month delay in filing before the learned CIT – A, and therefore he did not entertain the same. However, he has categorically recorded in paragraph No. six of his appeal that he has considered the reply filed by the assessee and accordingly only he has discussed the merits of the case as per paragraph No. 4 and 6 of the appeal. If the assessee’s appeal is not required to be admitted, the learned CIT (A) should not have discussed the facts of the case. Further, the assessee has given detailed reasons for delay in filing of the appeal which are reproduced by the learned CIT (A) at paragraph No. 3 of the appeal. Instead of discussing whether there is sufficient cause for filing the appeal late before him, he only discussed various case laws and dismissed the appeal, which is not admitted. We find that if the appellate authority is not sufficiently satisfied by the sufficient cause shown by the appellant in filing the appeal late before him, he should have discussed those causes, which is missing in this appellate order. Therefore, we do not wish to sustain the order passed by the learned CIT – A.
9. On the merits of the case, the issue is simple: if the subsequent years’ income details are entered by wrongly revising the returns filed by the assessee, naturally there would be a mismatch, and consequent demand or refund will arise. Accidentally, in this case, the demand has arisen; it is also possible that the assessee could have claimed a refund. Therefore, it needs to be verified whether the income details shown by the assessee in the revised return have been really incorporated in the subsequent year or not. This examination can be made only by the learned jurisdictional assessing officer. Therefore, we set aside all the grounds of appeal to the file of the learned assessing officer wherein the assessee is directed to show before him that there was no error and therefore the revised return filed by the assessee is incorrect and in fact what is the correct income of the assessee; the learned assessing officer, on being shown all these facts, may decide the issue about the correctness of claim of the assessee. Thus, grounds No. 1 – 11 of the appeal are allowed as indicated above.
10. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 21st September, 2026.
