Kumar Keshwani Vs ITO (ITAT Lucknow)
Summary: The Tribunal considered the assessee’s appeal against the CIT(A), NFAC order dated 23.08.2024 affirming rejection of a rectification application under Section 154 for A.Y. 2021-22. The assessee had filed the return declaring total income of Rs.31,06,120/-, including long-term capital gain of Rs.25,66,288/-. According to the assessee, the computer operator inadvertently entered the entire capital gain instead of the correct amount of Rs.11,97,893/-, resulting in excess income of Rs.13,68,395/- being offered to tax. The Assessing Officer rejected rectification on the ground that the return had been filed by the assessee, sufficient opportunity existed to file a revised return under Section 139(5), and the alleged mistake was not apparent from the record. The CIT(A) also rejected the claim.
Before the Tribunal, the assessee explained that the property was jointly owned with his cousin Shyama Keshwani and both co-owners had mistakenly disclosed the entire capital gain in their respective returns although each was liable to disclose only a 50% share. The assessee contended that a genuine typographical mistake should be rectified and that the Department could not collect tax on income which had never actually accrued to him. Reliance was placed upon Poorvanchal Vikas Foundation Vs ITO, Smt. Chandrikaben Thakarshibhai Lanqhnoia Vs ITO and Dinumantiben Damjibhai Shilu Vs ITO. The Revenue argued that Section 154 could not be used to introduce new facts or claims and that, after expiry of the revised-return period, the assessee’s remedy was a condonation petition under Section 119(2)(b).
